Comment

Comment by Amaterasu Solar on July 1, 2013 at 11:46pm

Search warrant for BLOOD!?!  Since WHEN did search warrants apply to Our substance and not that which surrounds Us!?!

Comment by claudette langley on July 1, 2013 at 9:26pm

Well disagreements  aside I am certainly heartened to see a former police officer and deputy on this site and willing to be awake:)

Comment by MAC on July 1, 2013 at 8:50pm

this is wrong on so many levels

Comment by truth on July 1, 2013 at 7:31pm

They have been doing this in some Ohio counties for years. Hey they got judges signature so stfu :)

Comment by Nobody Will Observe on July 1, 2013 at 7:07pm

Well we have two very FINE! retired Peace officers and Oath Keepers here!

Salute!

Comment by Timothy Lee Antony Michel on July 1, 2013 at 7:01pm

Time to get a lawyer versed in constitutional law and get these dirty cops locked up. Just because you have a badge doesn't mean you get to throw your weight around. I was a police officer for 14 years, and these guys almost make me ashamed to admit it. The state gets worse every year. Before they would do that to me, they could have back their crummy license. I'd walk first.

Comment by Just Bill on July 1, 2013 at 6:59pm

"Therefore, it is expected that if you refuse, you can be forced to give blood especially if there is "Criminal behavior" involved or criminal charges resulting in the person's driving under the influence." -- John Carman (above)

I really DO NOT CARE what the "expectations" are. I DO care what my rights as a citizen are. "Expectations" (whose? certainly not mine!) are NOT enforcible provisions of the law except through unreasonable use of force. (Any use of force not required for the enforcement of a valid law is both unreasonable and excessive in my eyes and constitutes its own, separate, criminal act which is not protected by statute simply because a sworn officer commits it.)

Since a person loses the privelege of driving (not the right of traveling -- the two are not synonymous) by refusing to provide the mandated bodily sample, I don't see the justification for forcibly requiring it to be provided. IEG: if failure to comply is a implied and sufficient admission of guilt, no further guilt can be shown with the sample than without it.

The only time a citizen would reasonably agree to provide the sample is if he/she believes the officer to be in error and that the sample would serve to demonstrate innocence.

In Michigan we could insist that the sample (if we were sober enough to remember the law at all!) be drawn in an accredited medical facility such as a hospital so as to maintain the proper chain of custody protections against false accusations.

I certainly would not trust the officer who has accused me of impaired driving to maintain proper chain of custody of the sample.

You may be sure that when I am sober, I will agree to touch my nose and walk a straight line just because I want to be on my way with as little friction as possible. If I am forced into something else alongside the road, as soon as I am able I will be calling my attorney: preferably from the hospital while the samples are being drawn.

Comment by J. Patriot on July 1, 2013 at 5:26pm

I agree that the State considers a Drivers License their property, and when you sign for a drivers license you agree to follow their rules. The State considers driving a privilege and not a right. Unfortunately that's the problem with the Federal and State Governments they consider everything a privilege!

 

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Number 1 your forcing them to be a witness against themselves by providing the evidence to help the State lock them up. Number 2 where's the due process of law when you get a generic warrant to draw blood from everybody suspected of driving under the influence. John from reading your comment we are in agreement on what the State thinks, but they are dead wrong! American's need to start standing up to them and telling them that freedom of movement is not a privilege but a right, and that they work for us! I will end with the Declaration of Independence where are Nation began, and should go back to!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Comment by Nobody Will Observe on July 1, 2013 at 4:15pm

"Privilege" That could be debated to much degree.

What if it a DUI check point?

It's incremental, as is all other lost of any rights:The Right To TravelAs the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Comment by Nobody Will Observe on July 1, 2013 at 4:03pm

I even had on guy who could recite the alphabet backwards!!(He was on Marijuana!) LOL! But only backwards ;)!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page