View Poll Results: mandatory blood draws, are they constitutional?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, it violates my rights as a person

    25 92.59%
  • yes, they are clearly constitutional

    2 7.41%
Page 1 of 70 123451151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1050

Thread: DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,490
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

    With the new years kicking in, it looks like more counties are going to implement 'no refusal' checkpoints, meaning that if you refuse a breathalyzer, then they can force you to submit to a blood draw.

    Is this a violation of your rights?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    i believe it depends on the individual states and their driving laws

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,490
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    i believe it depends on the individual states and their driving laws
    laws can't trump the constitutions of the respective states.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    laws can't trump the constitutions of the respective states.
    i remember reading about the state of WA and the issue went all the way to their sct...and forced blood draws, with a warrant, are constitutional

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,490
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    i remember reading about the state of WA and the issue went all the way to their sct...and forced blood draws, with a warrant, are constitutional
    so blood draws are an instance where you will indeed side with the courts, got it.

    are the courts always right?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    so blood draws are an instance where you will indeed side with the courts, got it.

    are the courts always right?
    i did not say the court was right...

    i believe it is an invasion, however, the courts believe our blood lawfully obtained evidence...imo, it is unnecessary invasion because you could still try the case w/o the blood sample, the testimony of the officer and other witnesses could make a case and your refusal to take the breathalyzer should be held against you

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,490
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    i did not say the court was right...

    i believe it is an invasion, however, the courts believe our blood lawfully obtained evidence...imo, it is unnecessary invasion because you could still try the case w/o the blood sample, the testimony of the officer and other witnesses could make a case and your refusal to take the breathalyzer should be held against you
    so the 5th Amendment no longer applies? for a refusal to incriminate one's self?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    so the 5th Amendment no longer applies? for a refusal to incriminate one's self?
    testimony and evidence are two different things

    you can refuse to testify, but, they can use evidence against you and here, the courts have said blood is proper evidence when obtained with a warrant, i don't know if all states follow this....

    i just looked up some info and apparently the SCOTUS has ruled that generally forced blood draws do not violate your rights and rejected your two arguments above

    SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic State
    Posts
    26,917
    Thanks
    3,256
    Thanked 5,373 Times in 4,319 Posts
    Groans
    1,505
    Groaned 2,440 Times in 2,029 Posts

    Default

    We are losing our rights, bit by bit, every day.....like its death from a thousand cuts
    Even issues presented as an extension of rights (usually for a few) is, in reality a contraction of rights for the majority.....
    Put blame where it belongs
    ATF decided it could not regulate bump stocks during the Obama administration.
    It that time," the NRA wrote in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
    The ATF and Obama admin. ignored the NRA recommendations.


  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,490
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    testimony and evidence are two different things

    you can refuse to testify, but, they can use evidence against you and here, the courts have said blood is proper evidence when obtained with a warrant, i don't know if all states follow this....

    i just looked up some info and apparently the SCOTUS has ruled that generally forced blood draws do not violate your rights and rejected your two arguments above

    SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
    so then the courts are always right. public safety trumps individual rights.

    BREITHAUPT V. ABRAM, 352 U. S. 432 (1957)

    (c) The right of the individual to immunity from such invasion of the body as is involved in a properly safeguarded blood test is far outweighed by the value of its deterrent effect due to public realization that the issue of driving while under the influence of alcohol can often by this method be taken out of the confusion of conflicting contentions. Pp. 352 U. S. 439-440.


    I find this quite pathetic, that rights can be judicially eliminated due to public pressure over some pressing societal need. we are no longer a free country, unless the courts say it is so.
    Last edited by SmarterthanYou; 12-30-2010 at 12:26 PM.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,815
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked 691 Times in 465 Posts
    Groans
    138
    Groaned 71 Times in 64 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    There was a time I'd have agreed with the courts, no longer. We see how this went onto now TSA, cooperate or be arrested. They will be on trains and buses next. Then museums, athletic arenas, etc.
    Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
    This is known as “bad luck.” - Robert Heinlein

  12. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,470
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 125 Times in 84 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 33 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    i remember reading about the state of WA and the issue went all the way to their sct...and forced blood draws, with a warrant, are constitutional
    The key phrase there is "with a warrant"

    Want to explain how they plan to get valid warrants for mandatory blood draws at "no refusal" checkpoints?

  13. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,544
    Thanks
    2,354
    Thanked 1,092 Times in 885 Posts
    Groans
    21
    Groaned 90 Times in 86 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    laws can't trump the constitutions of the respective states.
    I agree!

    But don't forget that the 16th Amendment did away with our right to our property.
    Man knows no master save creating heaven,
    or those whom choice and common good ordain.


    Demacrat--Republican---------------------Center-------------------------------------------Libartarian
    Marxist, and little freedom--------------------------------------------------Anti-Marxist-Much Liberty


    "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. . . One is by
    sword. . . The other is by debt.

    John Adams 1826

  14. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,490
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Luck View Post
    The key phrase there is "with a warrant"

    Want to explain how they plan to get valid warrants for mandatory blood draws at "no refusal" checkpoints?
    some counties plan on having a judge 'on site' to write a warrant for anyone that refuses.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  15. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,660
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    ..."The Constitution of the United States clearly says that police can't just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are "articulable facts" indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with drunk driving roadblocks? Good question. 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 case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its decision accordingly. But the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, though now permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution, and ruled again in favor of the defendant -- in effect saying to Rehnquist, "If you won't protect our citizens, we will." A small number of states have since followed Michigan's example."

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/921.asp

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2013, 05:17 PM
  2. JPP Weekends
    By Cancel 2016.11 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 06-11-2013, 03:04 PM
  3. This place sucks on the weekends.
    By /MSG/ in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-08-2011, 11:57 AM
  4. drug checkpoints vs dui checkpoints
    By SmarterthanYou in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-26-2011, 07:32 PM
  5. In two weekends...
    By Damocles in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 11:22 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •