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 2 of 70 FirstFirst 1234561252 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1050

Thread: DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

  1. #16 | 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 United States Supreme Court has found that sobriety checkpoints can be constitutional if they meet certain requirements. The Court has found that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on a driver’s constitutional rights.

    In order for the checkpoints to be constitutional there must be clear guidelines that are carefully followed by the legal authorities. The U.S. Supreme Court has left it up to each individual state to develop these guidelines. In California, for example, the state supreme court has held that the decisions about where to set up sobriety checkpoints and about which cars to stop (i.e. every car, every sixth car, etc) must be made by supervisors prior to officers setting up the checkpoints. The sites selected should be in areas that have a high incidence of drunk driving. Further, the site should be publicized and the length of each stop should be minimized, in addition to other requirements that the court developed to protect the rights of each driver as well as the general public.

    The U.S. Supreme Court had dissenting opinions that disagree with the ruling that sobriety checkpoints can be constitutional. Likewise, several states including Michigan and Texas have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their state constitutions.

    Do You Have to Comply with Sobriety Checkpoints?

    If the police ask you to stop your car at a sobriety checkpoint, or anywhere else, then you must comply. However, some states, such as Connecticut, have found that drivers do not have to answer questions such as, “Have you been drinking?” because to force drivers to do so would violate their Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self incrimination. Similarly, a driver might not have to comply with a field sobriety test (FST). However, in Connecticut and other states, the driver would have to comply with the request to take a breathalyzer test since, by law, drivers licenses are conditioned upon drivers’ cooperation with taking a breathalyzer test when requested by law enforcement..."


    http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Arti...eckpoints.html

  2. #17 | 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

    "...CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN
    No. 88-1897
    Feb. 27, 1990
    June 14, 1990

    Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

    This case poses the question whether a State's use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    We hold that it does not, and therefore reverse the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals of Michigan..."

    http://caselaw.duicenter.com/sitz01.html

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    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 Mojo View Post
    However, in Connecticut and other states, the driver would have to comply with the request to take a breathalyzer test since, by law, drivers licenses are conditioned upon drivers’ cooperation with taking a breathalyzer test when requested by law enforcement..."
    I created a thread awhile back about 'implied consent', meaning that in order to accomplish something, the state would require you to submit to some sort of action by law enforcement upon demand. There is no constitutional authority granted to do so, except through judicial decree, as in the michigan v. sitz case you cited.
    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. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 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
    Exactly. I used some advise from my atty when I was pulled over after having just a couple of drinks. I refused to do the field sobriety test but volunteered to do the breathalizer (Told the officer I had worked a 12 hour shift and was to tired to do the test). I blew under (.082 but the limit then was 0.1). Since they had no other evidence but the breathalizer they offered me a plea bargain to reduce it to a wreckless op. Since I was pulled over initially for a tail light being out I had my atty counter offer for a 2 point moving violation and they took it.

    The advice from my atty was, never take a field sobriety test. It can only hurt you and it can never help you. If your stone cold drunk, refuse a breathalizer and/or blood test too. You'll get nailed with implied consent but at least your atty still has something to work with. If you've had a few drinks and think your on the bubble, refuse the field sobriety test and take the breathalizer. Same if you've had nothing to drink. The logic being is that in court the police officers evaluation of the field sobriety test will carry more weight then the breathelizer. So even if you blow under or zero if the police officer gives the opinion that he thinks you were stoned on something....they can get you on that. So never, ever do the field sobriety test.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  5. #20 | 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 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?
    judges are on stand by for that...easier than you think

    also, in SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA, scotus said it is permissible to take a forced blood draw without a warrant if there is probable cause

  6. #21 | 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 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.
    while i disagree with the court, the scotus in SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA had a very different reasoning than breithaupt....i see their logic, i disagree with it though and imo it is an invasion of privacy notwithstanding the facts of that case

    4. In view of the substantial interests in privacy involved, petitioner's right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures
    applies to the withdrawal of his blood, but under the facts in this case there was no violation of that right. Pp. 766-772.
    (a) There was probable cause for the arrest and the same facts as established probable cause justified the police in
    requiring [384 U.S. 757, 758] petitioner to submit to a test of his blood-alcohol content. In view of the time required to bring
    petitioner to a hospital, the consequences of delay in making a blood test for alcohol, and the time needed to investigate
    the accident scene, there was no time to secure a warrant, and the clear indication that in fact evidence of intoxication
    would be found rendered the search an appropriate incident of petitioner's arrest. Pp. 770-771.
    (b) The test chosen to measure petitioner's blood-alcohol level was a reasonable one, since it was an effective means of
    determining intoxication, imposed virtually no risk, trauma or pain, and was performed in a reasonable manner by a
    physician in a hospital. P. 771.

  7. #22 | 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

    I detest people who drive while impaired. But enough is enough. The idea that Constitutional protections are invalidated by the "needs of society" is beyond the pale. With a precedent like that, what is stopping them from taking the same course with anti-terrorism? Torture to get a confession because the needs of society outweigh the rights of the individual.

    Thank God Montana's Constitution disallows sobriety check points and all the unconstitutional crap that goes with them. (There are 11 states which disallow them.) Seems it is becoming more and more up to the states to protect the rights of its citizens, since all three branches of the federal government have become more and more concerned with ways around the U.S. Constitution that actually following it.

  8. #23 | 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 Good Luck View Post
    I detest people who drive while impaired. But enough is enough. The idea that Constitutional protections are invalidated by the "needs of society" is beyond the pale. With a precedent like that, what is stopping them from taking the same course with anti-terrorism? Torture to get a confession because the needs of society outweigh the rights of the individual.

    Thank God Montana's Constitution disallows sobriety check points and all the unconstitutional crap that goes with them. (There are 11 states which disallow them.) Seems it is becoming more and more up to the states to protect the rights of its citizens, since all three branches of the federal government have become more and more concerned with ways around the U.S. Constitution that actually following it.
    i don't have a problem with dui check points...there is no invasion of privacy and no denial of any right

  9. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
    ..."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
    Further proof (as if any more was needed) that Michigan is the greatest state in the union.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  10. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 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
    WA state has gay DUI laws. Here, .08 on a breathalyzer is merely a guideline. The police have the final word on whether or not you were impaired, and therefore guilty of a DUI.

  11. #26 | 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 Toki Wartooth View Post
    Further proof (as if any more was needed) that Michigan is the greatest state in the union.
    Ha! Montana has the same prohibition. Not to mention other instances of telling Uncle Fed to take a hike. During the days of the old double-nickle, when the feds literally blackmailed states by withholding highway funds - Montana passed the 55, but made it a "conservation fine", set the fine a $5, with no hit on the driving record.

    When the feds started their national ID kick, our governor told them to take a hike. When the feds told him he needed to file for an extension after the original deadline passed, he told them there is no way in hell he is filing anything. We still do not the so-called REAL IDs in our state - just good old fashioned, non-electronic state driver's licenses. (Michigan caved.)

    Recently, we were one of a very few states to pass a law that states if a firearm is manufactured and sold in the state, it is not subject to federal regulations because interstate commerce does not apply. That law is currently in the federal courts. We're hoping it makes it to SCOTUS.

    When our governor signed the bills he said:
    I like guns. I like big guns, I like little guns, and I would like to buy a gun made in Montana.
    (I really like our governor - though he has been playing partisan a bit too much recently...)

    We also passed a "shall issue" law for concealed carry, though those are not unusual any more.

  12. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    It's pretty much the same here. We have no practical enforcement of speed limits, have our own FFA (freedom firearms act) about to be passed (may have already) and shall issue CC. We also don't have 3.2 beer.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  13. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

  14. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Threedee View Post
    What is 3.2 beer?
    Beer with a legally mandated 3.2 alcohol percentage.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  15. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

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
  •