- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
So what do the resident legal eagles think -- No-refusal DUI checkpoints .....
Posted on 12/14/12 at 7:33 am
Posted on 12/14/12 at 7:33 am
with nurse on scene to draw blood, district attorney on scene, and judge on call to issue search warrants by phone.
No-refusal DUI checkpoints .....
No-refusal DUI checkpoints .....
32
Posted on 12/14/12 at 7:37 am to Newbomb Turk
As long as they post them in the damn newspaper 48 hours in advance, I'm ok with this.
ETA: and I mean the exact location.
ETA: and I mean the exact location.
This post was edited on 12/14/12 at 7:39 am
Posted on 12/14/12 at 7:38 am to Newbomb Turk
It's absolute BS imo.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 7:38 am to Newbomb Turk
quote:
Suspected drunk drivers had two choices at the mobile command post: take a breathalyzer test or have your blood drawn on the spot.
If they think you are drunk based upon observation of behavior, and you refuse a requested breath test, and they get a judge to sign a warrant then you can have your blood drawn.
Seems like an issue of efficiency not an attack on the Constitution.
You have a problem with the existing law?
Posted on 12/14/12 at 7:42 am to CarrolltonTiger
I just think that it raises an interesting Constitutional question.
What if a driver DOES refuse both?
Are the cops going to hold him and let the nurse draw his blood?
Are they going to force the breathalyzer devise into his mouth and force him to breath into it?
What would the court system say if this happens?
What if a driver DOES refuse both?
Are the cops going to hold him and let the nurse draw his blood?
Are they going to force the breathalyzer devise into his mouth and force him to breath into it?
What would the court system say if this happens?
Posted on 12/14/12 at 8:02 am to Newbomb Turk
quote:
So what do the resident legal eagles think -- No-refusal DUI checkpoints .....
I think DUI checkpoints are sincerely the worst infingement on our freedoms that exists today.
However, the difference between no refusal checkpoints and regular chackpoints don't make much of a difference to me.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 8:13 am to TheHiddenFlask
I'm as against drunk driving as the next guy, but these no refusal checkpoints are very much an infringement on someone's rights.
There is no way in hell that this is constitutional. Very similar to the days of ole Hitler.
There is no way in hell that this is constitutional. Very similar to the days of ole Hitler.
This post was edited on 12/14/12 at 8:13 am
Posted on 12/14/12 at 8:20 am to Newbomb Turk
if you can't do the time, don't do the crime....
don't drink then drive, and you have nothing to worry about it.
we all better get used to it, because big brother knows whats best for us. Wear your seat belt, eat low fat, wear motorcycle helmet, force you to save for retirement, force you to get health insurance they deem the right coverage, restrict what is deemed inappropriate based on your age, limit the size of fountain drink you can have, make our kids eat healthy foods that now they wont ever eat so they get home starving and eat junk, ect.....
Liberty doesn't quite have the same meaning does it...
don't drink then drive, and you have nothing to worry about it.
we all better get used to it, because big brother knows whats best for us. Wear your seat belt, eat low fat, wear motorcycle helmet, force you to save for retirement, force you to get health insurance they deem the right coverage, restrict what is deemed inappropriate based on your age, limit the size of fountain drink you can have, make our kids eat healthy foods that now they wont ever eat so they get home starving and eat junk, ect.....
Liberty doesn't quite have the same meaning does it...
Posted on 12/14/12 at 8:28 am to tigeraddict
quote:
Wear your seat belt, eat low fat, wear motorcycle helmet, force you to save for retirement, force you to get health insurance they deem the right coverage, restrict what is deemed inappropriate based on your age, limit the size of fountain drink you can have, make our kids eat healthy foods that now they wont ever eat so they get home starving and eat junk
But don't you dare make killing an infant a crime. We don't need the government getting involved in something as trivial as child birth.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 8:35 am to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
I think DUI checkpoints are sincerely the worst infingement on our freedoms that exists today.
However, the difference between no refusal checkpoints and regular chackpoints don't make much of a difference to me.
I agree.
This issue is simply a continuation of the unconstitutionality of the checkpoint. A checkpoint, by definition, constitutes an "arrest" under the Fourth Amendment meaning that constitutional protections attach. At this point, the government needs, at a minimum, reasonable suspicion to detain. This is not present with a checkpoint.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 8:55 am to Antonio Moss
True freedom includes responsibility in individuals. Thanks to those who are not responsible - another fragment of our freedom has been taken away.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 8:57 am to Newbomb Turk
people who support these just scream "we don't really respect individual rights and will support any justification for erosion of those rights." this DWI shite is getting ridiculous
Posted on 12/14/12 at 8:59 am to Newbomb Turk
quote:
DUI checkpoints ..
Are an infringement period...same for insurance checkpoints...I don't think the government should be able to stop and detain you without prob cause.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 8:59 am to BugAC
quote:where in the US is it legal to kill an infant?
dare make killing an infant a crime
Posted on 12/14/12 at 8:59 am to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
You have a problem with the existing law?
i have a problem with the variables leading to the suspicion of drunkenness
when you read enough DWI arrest reports that list the magical "smelled alcohol on his breath" when they blow a 0.0, it gets old
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
Roads are public, not private, therefore you are subject to whatever entity has jurisdiction over the road.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:20 am to accnodefense
quote:
Roads are public, not private, therefore you are subject to whatever entity has jurisdiction over the road.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:23 am to Antonio Moss
You might think its funny but its true.
Speeding laws exist and are enforced because its part of the public contract of using the road.
Same with seatbelt laws, stop sign lets, traffic light laws, etc. All part of the public contract of using a public road
How can DUI laws be enforced without making a traffic stop? Otherwise the law might as well not exist at all.
Don't like it, build your own private roads and you can do whatever the hell you want on it
Therefore no-refusal DUI checkpoints absolutely are constitutional and would win 9-0 at the Supreme Court.
Plus I bet 90% of you are opposed because you are butthurt about possibly getting pulled over after a night of drinking.
Speeding laws exist and are enforced because its part of the public contract of using the road.
Same with seatbelt laws, stop sign lets, traffic light laws, etc. All part of the public contract of using a public road
How can DUI laws be enforced without making a traffic stop? Otherwise the law might as well not exist at all.
Don't like it, build your own private roads and you can do whatever the hell you want on it
Therefore no-refusal DUI checkpoints absolutely are constitutional and would win 9-0 at the Supreme Court.
Plus I bet 90% of you are opposed because you are butthurt about possibly getting pulled over after a night of drinking.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:All they need to actually stop you is to say that you swerved. I could say that about anyone on the road at any time. They freely stop whoever they want for DWIs.
when you read enough DWI arrest reports that list the magical "smelled alcohol on his breath" when they blow a 0.0, it gets old
Case in point:
I was at a bday party at the Cove on Corporate with about 15 friends. Cops waited for someone to leave the parking lot and pulled over every single person that was driving. Final tally, 9 different people of the group pulled over and zero DWI arrests. Cops were racing each other on Corporate to pull anyone over. It was where the DWI task force set up that night so they freely pulled over anyone they wanted to
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:28 am to accnodefense
quote:
You might think its funny but its true.
Speeding laws exist and are enforced because its part of the public contract of using the road.
Same with seatbelt laws, stop sign lets, traffic light laws, etc. All part of the public contract of using a public road
How can DUI laws be enforced without making a traffic stop? Otherwise the law might as well not exist at all.
Don't like it, build your own private roads and you can do whatever the hell you want on it
Therefore no-refusal DUI checkpoints absolutely are constitutional and would win 9-0 at the Supreme Court.
Plus I bet 90% of you are opposed because you are butthurt about possibly getting pulled over after a night of drinking.
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News