DWI tests refusal not allowed in JP, St. Tammany this weekend (POLL)

[kcinnick]

Call driving a privilege, I don't care, it does not matter if you feel it is a privilege or not . Taking away the privilege to drive from an innocent person for not wanting to submit to a breath test or blood test is a penalty for utilizing the 5th amendment. That is wrong and our founders are turning in their graves.

 

[CloudStrife]

Call driving a privilege, I don't care, it does not matter if you feel it is a privilege or not . Taking away the privilege to drive from an innocent person for not wanting to submit to a breath test or blood test is a penalty for utilizing the 5th amendment. That is wrong and our founders are turning in their graves.

Cops don't pull random people over. The person was already breaking some traffic law.

 

[kcinnick]

They do at checkpoints.

Again you are assuming a guilty person.

My last statement stands.

 

[CloudStrife]

At checkpoints there's no evidence that the person is drunk unless they get out stumbling. But if you're swerving around the road and acting drunk, but refuse to take a breathalyzer, I don't see why you can't be convicted on that evidence. It'd convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. We'd need dashcams on every unit though because I'm sure there would some false claims of people acting drunk.

 

[aard3]

What you are forgetting is you ABSOLUTELY have the right to do the "plead the 5th" version of a DWI. However, you then lose yoyur PRIVILEGE to drive.

Furthermore, a judge is issuing a warrant based on probable cause, same as any other search warrant or arrest warrant. It is not self-incrimination if a judge orders it.


Welcome. When you get a second, maybe you would start a thread to introduce yourself.

nolacopumc,

I'm not "forgetting' that I have the right do "plead the 5th" in his example... in the example I was quoting, I would be punished if I pleaded the 5th, the same as if I was convicted. I wasn't talking about how the law is right now.

That said, as of right now, IMHO you are punished if you plead the 5th, you're drivers license is taken away without any actual proof of guilt, and lets be honest, for most people these days that creates an impossible situation... either drive without a license to get to work to feed their family, or get laid off... I just don't see how that helps anything.

Again, I'm not condoning drinking and driving, and I'm NOT speaking from experience!!

Aaron

EDIT: p.s. I'd really like to get into one of the magpul trainings if there are every another Pistol I or Carbine I class offered here locally!

 

[aard3]

Cops don't pull random people over. The person was already breaking some traffic law.

This is total BS. I have personally been stopped at MANY DUI checkpoints (Baton Rouge, College dr. at Lee Highschool and Hwy 59 in Mandeville). I was stopped for no reason, as where other cars. In m opinion this is absolutely a violation of my rights.

Aaron

 

[aard3]

At checkpoints there's no evidence that the person is drunk unless they get out stumbling. But if you're swerving around the road and acting drunk, but refuse to take a breathalyzer, I don't see why you can't be convicted on that evidence. It'd convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. We'd need dashcams on every unit though because I'm sure there would some false claims of people acting drunk.

The point is that I never should have been stopped at a checkpoint unless there was reasonable suspicion that I was driving under the influence. If someone is swerving all over the road, by all means, pull them over...but stopping cars that are doing nothing wrong is a violation of my rights.

Aaron

 

[CloudStrife]

This is total BS. I have personally been stopped at MANY DUI checkpoints (Baton Rouge, College dr. at Lee Highschool and Hwy 59 in Mandeville). I was stopped for no reason, as where other cars. In m opinion this is absolutely a violation of my rights.

Aaron

I agree. I put it under unreasonable search. I was referring to a normal traffic stop in which someone is breaking a traffic law.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

This is total BS. I have personally been stopped at MANY DUI checkpoints (Baton Rouge, College dr. at Lee Highschool and Hwy 59 in Mandeville). I was stopped for no reason, as where other cars. In m opinion this is absolutely a violation of my rights.

Aaron

What rights? You have no right to be on the road in the first place it is a privilege. That privilege comes with rules and one of them happens to be that LEO can conduct checkpoints. USSC has already ruled checkpoints legal and constitutional.

If you do not like checkpoints, simply do not partake of your PRIVILEGE to drive.

You are confusing the fact that for all of us, driving has become such a necessity, that you feel it is a right. It is not.

it is just like I extend the privilege for you to shop in my store, but my rules apply.

 

[charlie12]

At checkpoints there's no evidence that the person is drunk unless they get out stumbling. But if you're swerving around the road and acting drunk, but refuse to take a breathalyzer, I don't see why you can't be convicted on that evidence. It'd convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. We'd need dashcams on every unit though because I'm sure there would some false claims of people acting drunk.

In our case he wasn't convicted because the F**king DA wouldn't prosecute him for DWI even with a great LSP report and video. It's who you know and who you blow.

 

[charliepapa]

why is everyone falling on their sword here? if you're drunk, don't drive. if you're driving erratically and the nice policeman asks you to blow in the tube and you're not drunk, just do it. why is this such a big deal?

now please don't say it could lead to other things, us losing more rights or liberties or whatever. I don't believe in evolution and by that token I take this at face value and don't think it will evolve into something else.

bottom line here is that it's drunks competing for asphalt with my wife and kids so as far as I'm concerned they can either blow in the tube when asked or go to jail for withholding evidence!

 

[aard3]

I agree. I put it under unreasonable search. I was referring to a normal traffic stop in which someone is breaking a traffic law.

Oh... I agree. If someone is pulled over for a normal traffic stop, and the officer has reasonable suspicion to think they having been drinking, that's something different.

Aaron

 

[kcinnick]

At checkpoints there's no evidence that the person is drunk unless they get out stumbling. But if you're swerving around the road and acting drunk, but refuse to take a breathalyzer, I don't see why you can't be convicted on that evidence. It'd convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. We'd need dashcams on every unit though because I'm sure there would some false claims of people acting drunk.

A conviction based on evidence is totally appropriate in this situation. The problem lies in that there is not a single prosecutor that will take a DWI case without Chemical evidence.

It is not appropriate to suspend their license just because they don't blow, I see this law as an easy out for prosecutors, and undue burden on law abiding citizens and is indifferent to those who actually are guilty of DWI.

 

[charliepapa]

This is total BS. I have personally been stopped at MANY DUI checkpoints (Baton Rouge, College dr. at Lee Highschool and Hwy 59 in Mandeville). I was stopped for no reason, as where other cars. In m opinion this is absolutely a violation of my rights.

Aaron

can you be a little more specific? what *right* was violated? your right to what?

were you exercising a privilege on a road paid for by all taxpayers who have been granted and exercise that same privilege? if so, then you have obviously agreed to participate in roadblocks to catch drunks. if you disagree, simply sell your car and buy a bus pass. it's THAT easy.

 

[charliepapa]

Aren't roads public property paid for with taxes taken from the citizens of the state/country?

aren't roads paid for with taxes paid (as opposed to taken) with fuel sales? I am under that impression which makes a direct correlation between who pays and who uses.

 

[aard3]

What rights? You have no right to be on the road in the first place it is a privilege. That privilege comes with rules and one of them happens to be that LEO can conduct checkpoints. USSC has already ruled checkpoints legal and constitutional.

If you do not like checkpoints, simply do not partake of your PRIVILEGE to drive.

You are confusing the fact that for all of us, driving has become such a necessity, that you feel it is a right. It is not.

it is just like I extend the privilege for you to shop in my store, but my rules apply.

To be honest, I don't agree with that "driving is a privilege". I mean, really, what's not a privilege if you think about it?? Following that logic, you can consider everything I do to be a privilege... it's a privilege because the government "let's" me do it...I'm so glad the government lets me breathe!

Along with that, following your logic, a police officer should be able to pull me over for anything he wants right? Because, I mean, driving is a privilege right? So police should be able to stop me for anything, and revoke the "privilege" at any time???

IMHO, people have been convinced that driving is some sort of magical "privilege" granted to them.

The different with your store is that you OWN your store... my taxes go to pay for the roads... and the police officers salary. I know cops never like to hear this, but I can't opt out of paying those taxes, in return for opting out of the "public services"... but they'll sure throw "it's a privilege" to drive on the road you PAID for in your face.

Aaron

 

[aard3]

can you be a little more specific? what *right* was violated? your right to what?

were you exercising a privilege on a road paid for by all taxpayers who have been granted and exercise that same privilege? if so, then you have obviously agreed to participate in roadblocks to catch drunks. if you disagree, simply sell your car and buy a bus pass. it's THAT easy.

Yea, but I can't opt out of paying those taxes for that road ;-)

Aaron

Edit: Right to be secure in ones possessions, and the right to unreasonable search a seizure. You logic really fails because this "privilege" theory can be applied to everything. It's slippery slope, next it will be "it's a privilege" to drive, so we can pull you over for no reason and search your vehicle... or its a privilege to own a home, and we can search it at any time.... where does it stop?

How do you boil a frog....?

 

[charliepapa]

Yea, but I can't opt out of paying those taxes for that road ;-)

Aaron

sure you can. quit buying gasoline and you won't be paying for roads.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Aren't roads public property paid for with taxes taken from the citizens of the state/country??

I grasp the concept that driving isn't a right (again, since cars weren't around and driving your wagon while drunk wasn't as big an issue in 1776) but the veracity with which - say it with me - public servants are beating the "we merely allow you to pass on these roads which you paid for, but we control" is, well, disgusting.

By that logic, any cop can stop any citizen at any time for no reason. Is that your position?

Don't be an ass...besides, I do not like the flavor of your bait.

OK. I am lying....

If anyone, you know what I mean.

Yes the roads or public property, and following the logic backwards, the public elected the officials who enacted the laws on behalf of the public, so the public at large agrees with the concept as it pertains to public use of the roads.

Furthermore, "public servants" are servants to the public, but not anyone individual, so to that end, you are really inconsequential as an individual to the public as an entity. When you get a conversation with LEO, the "public servant" is servicing the public at large which is endangered either literally or morally (depending on crime and your view of it) by your violation.

Basically, in a larger conceptual manner, when you are at the receiving end of LEO(generally when guilty) you are not the public, everyone else is.

you act like it is LEO that are making these rules and "allowing you to pass." It is the elected officials that "the public" elected.

SO a LEO working a checkpoint or forcing blood on a DWI is performing the will of the people, as legislated by their representatives.

 

[charliepapa]

To be honest, I don't agree with that "driving is a privilege". I mean, really, what's not a privilege if you think about it?? Following that logic, you can consider everything I do to be a privilege... it's a privilege because the government "let's" me do it...I'm so glad the government lets me breath!

Along with that, following your logic, a police officer should be able to pull me over for anything he wants right? Because, I mean, driving is a privilege right? So police should be able to stop me for anything, and revoke the "privilege" at any time???

IMHO, people have been convinced that driving is some sort of magical "privilege" granted to them.

The different with your store is that you OWN your store... my taxes go to pay for the roads... and the police officers salary. I know cops never like to hear this, but I can't opt out of paying those taxes, in return for opting out of the "public services"... but they'll sure throw "it's a privilege" to drive on the road you PAID for in your face.

Aaron

why is everyone falling on their sword here? if you're drunk, don't drive. if you're driving erratically and the nice policeman asks you to blow in the tube and you're not drunk, just do it. why is this such a big deal?

now please don't say it could lead to other things, us losing more rights or liberties or whatever. I don't believe in evolution and by that token I take this at face value and don't think it will evolve into something else.

bottom line here is that it's drunks competing for asphalt with my wife and kids so as far as I'm concerned they can either blow in the tube when asked or go to jail for withholding evidence!

.