i believe it depends on the individual states and their driving laws
No, it violates my rights as a person
yes, they are clearly constitutional
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.
i believe it depends on the individual states and their driving laws
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
..."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
Bookmarks