No refusal dui check points in tn.

[Mdunntn]

What are your thoughts on this? If you refuse to take a breathalyzer, they force you to let them draw your blood, if you refuse you lose your license for a year. http://www.wbir.com/news/article/286550/2/This-weekend-No-refusal-DUI-checks-
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[wjh2657]

_{It's legal;. There is no Constitutional right to drive a car. It is a privilege extended by the State of Tennessee. Since they are the agency extending the privilege, they have to right to decide the conditions of the privilege (regulations).}

[crossfire]

What are your thoughts on this? If you refuse to take a breathalyzer, they force you to let them draw your blood, if you refuse you lose your license for a year. http://www.wbir.com/news/article/286550/2/This-weekend-No-refusal-DUI-checks-
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Don't drive if you've been drinking!

[RobertNashville]

What are your thoughts on this? If you refuse to take a breathalyzer, they force you to let them draw your blood, if you refuse you lose your license for a year. http://www.wbir.com/news/article/286550/2/This-weekend-No-refusal-DUI-checks-
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

It is both the law in Tennessee and not a violation of your right to be free of search - they "force" a blood draw by getting  a warrant to do so; same as if they wanted to search your car or your home and you didn't consent to the search.

[mikegideon]

I'm gonna practice my Voldemort lines, put on a gorilla suit, and go find one of those check points! Anybody wanna film it? I'll give you half of the new Youtube channel :)

[Mark@Sea]

and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

 

  And what exactly is the probable cause for a random search? 

[sigmtnman]

and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

 

  And what exactly is the probable cause for a random search? 

 

The officer "suspects...".  Says so in the article.

[Mdunntn]

Don't drink and drive is like obama saying if you haven't done anything wrong there is nothing to worry about its all for your safety. Cant you be charged for a dui if you fail a sobriety test? What's the point if taking blood.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[Mark@Sea]

_{It's legal;. There is no Constitutional right to drive a car. It is a privilege extended by the State of Tennessee. Since they are the agency extending the privilege, they have to right to decide the conditions of the privilege (regulations).}

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

  You don't need a specific enumerated right to do something in this country.  Interesting mindset, though.

[TMF]

Don't drink and drive is like obama saying if you haven't done anything wrong there is nothing to worry about its all for your safety. Cant you be charged for a dui if you fail a sobriety test? What's the point if taking blood.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Umm, evidence? It's with a warrant anyway. Just like for DNA tests, which they can get a warrant on. Once there is a warrant all bets are off. That's a judge. That is in no way unconstitutional.

[TMF]

You don't need a specific enumerated right to do something in this country. Interesting mindset, though.

In that case I should be able to drunk fly a plane onto a Air Force base.

[RobertNashville]

This is a law which I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it.

 

No one has a right to drive a vehicle at all and certainly not so while under the influence...anyone who does that is SCUM and is every bit as dangerous to innocent people (and just as much of a thug) as the thug that breaks into you house at 3AM.

 

I've lost too many people to these scum; I have less than ZERO sympathy left for any of them.

Edited August 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

  You don't need a specific enumerated right to do something in this country.  Interesting mindset, though.

Yes, and the State of Tennessee allows, under state-proscribed circumstances, people (ostensibly citizens and legal residents) to operate vehicles on public roadways because overall, that is good for society. However, it is still not a right, natural or otherwise.

 

When someone chooses to violate the rules the State has established then the State has the power and the right to revoke that privilege.

[npgunner]

So if I'm just driving down the road and happen upon one of these "no refusal" check points I should be happy that the police are forcing me to blow into their machine?  And if not they'll get a rubber stamped "warrant" just because I said no. Oh riiiiight ... its in the name of "safety."  And it's "good for the children" that people aren't driving drunk.

 

... seems legit to me ... :screwy:

 

You guys probably agree with this logic for gun control too right?

[sigmtnman]

So if I'm just driving down the road and happen upon one of these "no refusal" check points I should be happy that the police are forcing me to blow into their machine?  And if not they'll get a rubber stamped "warrant" just because I said no. Oh riiiiight ... its in the name of "safety."  And it's "good for the children" that people aren't driving drunk.

 

... seems legit to me ... :screwy:

 

You guys probably agree with this logic for gun control too right?

 

You are expecting some sort of consistency in logic with regard to rights?  phbt.

 

As long as it's the other guys rights that I don't think matter, then it is ok.

[RobertNashville]

So if I'm just driving down the road and happen upon one of these "no refusal" check points I should be happy that the police are forcing me to blow into their machine?  And if not they'll get a rubber stamped "warrant" just because I said no. Oh riiiiight ... its in the name of "safety."  And it's "good for the children" that people aren't driving drunk.

 

... seems legit to me ... :screwy:

 

You guys probably agree with this logic for gun control too right?

Ignoring, for the moment, that checkpoints must make their locations public knowledge before they go into operation, and therefore, avoidable, yes it is legit. If you don't think it is legitimate on what Constitutional basis makes you think it isn't?.

 

If you are driving a vehicle on a public roadway and show signs of being DUI then their getting a warrant and doing a blood test to prove it one way or the other is wholly reasonable and, as I understand the document, also Constitutional.

Edited August 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

So if I'm just driving down the road and happen upon one of these "no refusal" check points I should be happy that the police are forcing me to blow into their machine? And if not they'll get a rubber stamped "warrant" just because I said no. Oh riiiiight ... its in the name of "safety." And it's "good for the children" that people aren't driving drunk.

... seems legit to me ... :screwy:

You guys probably agree with this logic for gun control too right?

I didn't realize they were mandating that everyone blow. I thought it was for suspicion if DUI only. If it is a matter of blowing into a breathalyzer when there is no suspicion of DUI, then yes, it is wrong. Of course I'm not arguing that roadside.

[RobertNashville]

I didn't realize they were mandating that everyone blow. I thought it was for suspicion if DUI only. If it is a matter of blowing into a breathalyzer when there is no suspicion of DUI, then yes, it is wrong. Of course I'm not arguing that roadside.

From the Story: "Tennessee's "no refusal" law allows officers to seek search warrants for blood samples when they suspect a driver to be impaired.  The special enforcement includes saturation patrols, bar and tavern checks and sobriety checkpoints."

 

Nothing in the story, short as it is, indicates that "everyone" will be required to do a breath test or anything else; only those the officers have (dare I say reasonable) suspicion of the driver being DUI in which case they get a warrant and force a blood test.  I don't know if the driver choosing to do a breath test negates the blood test or not but I suspect it would.

[TMF]

From the Story: "Tennessee's "no refusal" law allows officers to seek search warrants for blood samples when they suspect a driver to be impaired. The special enforcement includes saturation patrols, bar and tavern checks and sobriety checkpoints."

Nothing in the story, short as it is, indicates that "everyone" will be required to do a breath test or anything else; only those the officers have (dare I say reasonable) suspicion of the driver being DUI in which case they get a warrant and force a blood test. I don't know if the driver choosing to do a breath test negates the blood test or not but I suspect it would.

Then there is no justifiable outrage here. Implied consent is the standard when suspected of DUI, whether at a checkpoint or not. I think folks are using the "no refusal" slogan out of context. When you sign the papers for your driver's license it tells you that if you do not consent you automatically have your license suspended for a year. And if an officer suspects you of drinking and driving, well it only makes sense that they would pursue a warrant from a judge to have your blood drawn. That's like, police work 101 or something... suspect a crime, get a warrant.

If checkpoints were a matter of an officer being like "hey, wassup?" and there was no expectation of response and no "zee papers" then there is nothing wrong with it, and an officer can detain you if he suspects you of DUI. That is true of anywhere. There is no law against a cop asking you questions. However, "zee papers" crap is over the line in my interpretation of the Constitution, which seems clear enough that the average person can understand without having to be a judge or Constitutional lawyer.

[pitt2magic]

I am in no way advocating driving after drinking but it is my personal opinion to take the blood test.  I will occasionally have a beer with dinner then drive home.  Certainly not impaired or above the legal limit but I am not willing to trust my future to a machine that is kept in an officer's trunk.  Of course you have to be willing to be cuffed and hauled to an ER to have your blood drawn, to me its worth the trouble.  I am a reserve deputy but my main gig is ER nursing.  I have drawn many blood samples for DUI over the past decade.  I think that my technique is consistent and the results more accurate than a machine that gets slammed around in a car all day.  

 

Again, this is all opinion so dont ask me for research data on accuracy and such.  They legally have the right to test me, I just want it done the right way.

[tnguy]

I'm against the DUI checkpoints in the first place but once they have reasonable suspicion to believe you're drunk driving, all bets are off with breathalyzers and blood samples.

Edited August 30, 2013 by tnguy

[leroy]

Let me see if i can add a bit of a "twist" on the "no refusal" DUI checkpoint thing...  As i understand it (...and as others have pointed out or hinted at...) a "drivers license" is a special permission given out to a citizen by the state for the right to do a certain thing (...drive...) with certain conditions attached (....think training, drivers testing, insurance, not doing certain things; like drinkin or dopin here....) all for a fee (...of course....) as opposed to a constitutional issue..  The constitution says nothin about states issuing licenses.  We can have a big discussion about whether this "license - fee" thing is good; but it's the norm and aint gonna change.

 

Said another way; a "license" has "strings attached" and requirements that are demanded by the state.  One of the big strings is a requirement that says "dont drive impaired"....  The stated reason is that ya cant drive too well impaired.  It endangers others. Bingo (...or eureka...) we've found the basis for "no refusal" DUI checkpoints.... .  We can quibble about the Fourth Amendment thing a bit; but it appears that the courts have long ruled that LEO has the prerogative (...even a duty, if ya are into "serving and protecting" the community....) to set up DUI checkpoints and its a slam dunk that they have "probable cause" to do so... Take a look at the number of "driving impaired" crashes anywhere... Like it or not, they dont need a warrant if there is a state law in place that outlines the "strings attached to driving"....

 

Take a look at the news... There is not a week (...or sometimes even 2 to 3 days...) that goes by without some drunken son or daughter of satan either crashing or killin another driver in your neck of the woods.  There's is one that just happened the other day or two that killed some innocent folks right here in east tennessee.  The dammed drunken driver wuz drivin on a revolked license and wuz a chronic offender.  Evidently the 3 strikes and your out doesnt work on some folks.

 

DUI checkpoints calm down this epidemic of "impaired driving" to some extent; and i think that's a good thing.   If everyone had good sense, ya wouldn't need DUI checkpoints.   Casual observation will demonstrate that lots of folks aint too smart. 

 

The world is upside down... Dont fall into the trap of thinkin that somehow that your constitutional rights are being somehow violated when ya get in your car and encounter a DUI checkpoint... I've been thru bunches of them... I think they save lives... We can quibble about what ought to be done with drunk and impaired driving chronic offenders -- i tend to think we ought to shoot 'em--- but that's just me.

 

RE: the "mean overbearing LEO thing"... Yeah there are some out there; but the vast majority of LEO types are professional and tryin to do the right thing for the right reasons... The fact is that we live in an imperfect world where folks of all stripes do wrong things.  That is the nature of the fallen state of man...  I say give 'em a break; they aint the gestapo and they aint gonna haul ya off to the gulag or shoot ya (...unless ya do somethin real stupid...).

 

I say "dont drive impared" and "drive safely"... the life ya save could be your own, your neighbors, or your loved ones.... . That is a very important and worthwhile thing.....

 

leroy

[TMF]

Let me see if i can add a bit of a "twist" on the "no refusal" DUI checkpoint thing... As i understand it (...and as others have pointed out or hinted at...) a "drivers license" is a special permission given out to a citizen by the state for the right to do a certain thing (...drive...) with certain conditions attached (....think training, drivers testing, insurance, not doing certain things; like drinkin or dopin here....) all for a fee (...of course....) as opposed to a constitutional issue.. The constitution says nothin about states issuing licenses. We can have a big discussion about whether this "license - fee" thing is good; but it's the norm and aint gonna change.

Said another way; a "license" has "strings attached" and requirements that are demanded by the state. One of the big strings is a requirement that says "dont drive impaired".... The stated reason is that ya cant drive too well impaired. It endangers others. Bingo (...or eureka...) we've found the basis for "no refusal" DUI checkpoints.... . We can quibble about the Fourth Amendment thing a bit; but it appears that the courts have long ruled that LEO has the prerogative (...even a duty, if ya are into "serving and protecting" the community....) to set up DUI checkpoints and its a slam dunk that they have "probable cause" to do so... Take a look at the number of "driving impaired" crashes anywhere... Like it or not, they dont need a warrant if there is a state law in place that outlines the "strings attached to driving"....

Well, you don't need a license to drive your own car. It's your property; you can do with it as you please. You can drunk drive it all day long on your land. Driving it on the road is a different story. The city/county/state operate and maintain those roads, so it makes sense that they establish rules for operation on that road. I don't think that it means that you lose your God given rights as soon as you drive on it though, such as unreasonable search and seizure.

[leroy]

TMF:  RE this:

 

 

I don't think that it means (...when ya drive on public roads -- leroy insert...) that you lose your God given rights as soon as you drive on it though, such as unreasonable search and seizure.

 

TMF post quote from above...

 I think this is an interestin conundrum to consider when ya look at the libertarian (...Constitutional....) thought vs the current "conventional" way of doin things here in TN.. ..  The libertarian side of me says that the state (...or local...) gubmt cant suspend your Fourth Amendment rights; and i dont think ya do; even in this case.  I think we can quibble about whether it should be done to begin with the way it is now; but that's another fight; and if libertarianism ever completely wins the day, i think we'll see the fight renewed; with possible differing outcomes on lots of things...

 

While lookin at the other side of this; i come up with this little picture:  

When ya take a look back to the "old days", when there were horses and mules; the sheriff simply arrested ya for "public drunkenness" (...assumin there wuz a law against that; which, again, we can quibble about...) and put ya in the slammer to sober up...  No tests, no warrants, no nothin; just him, you and the jail; and no one challenged that action... This action wuz thought to be an "acceptable action" under law because it wuz the community norm.   There  "probable cause" wuz the sheriff's judgement based on his observations of you and his oath to uphold the law to the best of his ability... It's the historical precedent thing.  We can quibble about whether that is right or not; but it is what it is, regardless; and law is built on precedent as well as rules and words.

 

Fast forward to now... We still got folks drinkin and drivin; and we still got the sheriff observin (...via the DUI checkpoint....) and we've got new tools to detect and prove "drunkeness".  We still got "probable cause or lack there of depending on his observation" (...his observations of you as he interacts at the checkpoint...)... If he thinks you are impaired. he asks for a test... You can still refuse to do the sobriety check test and make him get a warrant to get a blood sample; but that is exactly what he will do.  All the while, you and he waits for the warrant (...as i understand things now...).

 

Ya still get to exercise your right to demand a "writ from a judge"; but the LEO will have no problem gettin one.  Thus your right to demand a "writ from a judge" has been fulfilled; your constitutional right has been preserved; and you are headed for the drunk tank.  The question then becomes wuz the original observation an overbearing and malicious "unreasonable search and seizure" or wuz the sheriff's observation and subsequent actions "reasonable" to begin with?...  Ya know who is gonna win that one....

 

leroy

Edited August 30, 2013 by leroy

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It may not make much sense, but if asked to do a breathalyzer, I would willingly request a blood test but be reluctant to submit to a breathalyzer. No warrant required. If they wanna drive me to the emergency room for a blood draw then it is on their own dime. The odds are nil that I'd be driving with any alcohol in the system. Just wouldn't be inclined to fully trust field equipment that gets used and abused so frequently. More confident in the result of a hospital automated blood analyzer.