quote:

---

how do search warrants for DNA for a Sexual Assault or murder fit into your legal analysis or are they unconstitutional too?

---

There are a few ways to obtain DNA evidence without drawing blood.

wrong about what?

quote:

---

chances are he hit property that either belonged to the state, or belonged to another individual... therefore, there was a victim.

---

There is not two different standards of "probable cause" for a crime involving a "victim" and one not involving a victim. The only requirement that a peace officer is required to demonstrate for a search warrant for anything is that the person or place "probably" contains evidence of a crime. The fact that the blood is drawn from your body is of no legal consequence as long as there is probable cause it contains evidence.

The law doesn't see any difference in getting DNA by blood, saliva, buccal swabs and getting Blood for determining alcohol concentration.

You have no legal right to drive on the roadways. The State allows you that privilege if you meet certain standards and follow certain rules. One of those is that you agree not to drive impaired by the reason of the introduction of alcohol into your body. You agreed, whether you realize it or not, to give a specimen of your blood or breath if there is PC that you were DWI. If you fail to do so, the State will suspend your DL (even if you are subsequently found not to be DWI)

You might not like it, but blood SW for DWI is the law. It has been repeatedly held constitutional by multiple states and by the USSC.

quote:

---

One of those is that you agree not to drive impaired by the reason of the introduction of alcohol into your body.

---

this, for one, is not true.

As for the double standard, a majority of victimless crimes are traffic related...the rest are misdemeanors that stay exclusive to a town... for instance, leaving your garbage can on the curb for more than 24 hours... but even then it can be argued that your neighbors are victims of sorts.

Keep in mind, you're speaking with a libertarian in every sense of the name. If a person is unable to govern themselves, no police state, no matter how large/powerful will be able to.


Here is an idea for you, a away around an unreasonable search.

If breath is one of the ways to determine BAC, a person cannot keep from exhaling and continue to live. Take a sample of that, and explain the affinity for false positives that breathalizers have... then have the suspect volunteer evidence that gives truer results.

If the suspect has not requested a lawyer, the police can do what they do to get the suspect to volunteer blood before they give the breathalizer results...

IF the breathalizer shows less than .08% BAC, and the suspect volunteers... there you go...

If the breathalizer shows more than .08% BAC it's just a matter of disclosing the results to the suspect which should help get them to volunteer blood. If they still refuse, the breathalizer evidence is still there and as valid as it can be.



as far as why this hits a nerve with me... anytime I get stuck with a needle (booster shot, IV drip, blood draw...) I pass out, no questions asked. When I come to, disoriented and edgy, it is quite an embarrasing debacle. To even have the threat of a needle available and some brat with a gavel forcing me to take it even though I KNOW it'll turn up 0.0 to 0.07 is beyond ridiculous.

[This message has been edited by TexasRebel (edited 4/10/2010 5:53p).]

quote:

---

you're speaking with a libertarian in every sense of the name

---

A question I would like to ask any Libertarian is "why do you allow the government to install stop signs, traffic lights etc ?"

Do Libertarians believe in any laws and why or why not. It appears to me that a true Libertarian would only follow the law of your conscience. I would think that would end in caos.

I am not trying to condemn, I just want to know what laws a Libertarian would follow and why.

TexReb, I think the difference in our arguments is you are espousing what you WISH the law were and I'm telling you what it IS.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it ain't so. The law in this regard won't be changing in our life times. In fact, I strongly anticipate the law will become more and more stringent as it relates to DWI, your privilege to drive and the government.

Your one solution is to refuse to exercise the privilege of driving then you exempt yourself from those rules.

once again, driving is neither a privledge or a right... it is an ability.

no cop in the world can tell somebody that they can't drive, he/she can just get mad when they catch the person.

That's like saying practicing medicine or law is "an ability". To do it legally is a privilege allowed by the government extended to those who meet certain qualifications.

Try driving without a license or while the "privilege" is suspended and see if all that happens is an angry police officer. You can go to jail and you can stay there.

The fact of the matter is Texas Courts have always held driving in a privilege allowed by the government as opposed to right (although courts have allowed some due process protections because it is a significant privilege).

Again, just because you don't think driving is a privilege doesn't mean the law agrees with you. Violate the rules and the government will take away that privilege and then lock you up if you continue to violate it. This will all be done legally and constitutionally.

only if you get caught on a public road.

I'm willing to bet that there are more than a few people that drive in Texas their entire lives without ever getting a license... and more that are still driving without licenses after having them revoked/suspended.

Similar to insurance. How many uninsured drivers are out there? Why not insurance checkpoints?

Again, semantics TexReb. People get away with murder, molesting children, selling crack and having sex with animals. All of these are "abilities" people have. It doesn't mean it is legal and if they get caught they will suffer the consequences.

I've hijacked this thread enough. I'm outta here.

agreed

why even give any warning?

toss the drunk drivers in jail,
throw away the keys

You want to hear a good story? I got pulled over this afternoon on the way home from the gun range. I was 'speeding' at 4mph over. They asked me to hop out. Since I hadn't drank since last weekend, I said sure to expedite the process, as I knew what was coming anyways. I thought that it was very clear that I wasn't coming from chilifest, as my whole arsenal was visible in the back seat. 25 minutes and a warning later I was on my way, only to be rear ended 2 blocks from my house by a drunk driver. I don't understand why we need to violate civil liberties to enforce something like this. Ramp up security and enforcement, and throw these guys who refuse the test in jail. They are going to defer regardless, unless they are multiple offenders. This is doing nothing to deter the morons that are getting people hurt and/or killed. Names and locations of aforementioned incidents are withheld to protect the guilty.

fire,
If you were a cop would you leave someone inside a vehicle with an 'arsenal' in the back seat?

This is obviously a breach of the Bill of Rights. In whose mind is strapping an innocent person down and forcibly drawing blood from them not an unreasonable search? Also in doing so how are you not forcing them to self-incriminate themselves?

Another fine example of 'service' by the CSPD.

[This message has been edited by BaronVonAggie (edited 4/11/2010 12:18a).]

BVA, the constitution (Bill of Rights)is satisfied provided that a police officer can provide sufficient probable cause to a neutral magistrate that a person or place possess evidence of the commission of a crime. In this case the place is you body and the evidence is your blood. The search is reasonable because a Judge determines there is probable cause that you possess evidence of a crime. A search warrant for blood is no different than a search warrant for your house, car, or place of business.

Incrimination in the context of the 5th Amendment pertains to speech. The 5th Amendment does not protect you from revealing incriminating evidence by other means (blood).

It's a warrant. If they have probable cause and a judge then they can get a warrant. Do I like it? NO. But is it legal? Yes, if done correctly.

The law I disagree with is the one that says refusing a breathalyzer results in an automatic license suspension, regardless of detention, arrest or conviction. That's an obvious lack of due process.

Stucco, I agree with your opinion about the usefulness or fairness of the Automatic License Revocation (ALR) program, however, there is a "due process" protection built in. You have 15 days to request an administrative hearing. At that hearing, the DPS must prove that the stop was legal and that there was probable cause you were DWI. If the ALR judge enters those findings then your DL will be suspended. If not then there is no suspension.

The ALR program and the DL surcharges are nothing more than revenue generating schemes. I think, like some states have done, we should simply make it a crime to refuse the test if they want to get serious about it.

quote:

---

The search is reasonable because a Judge determines there is probable cause that you possess evidence of a crime. A search warrant for blood is no different than a search warrant for your house, car, or place of business.

---

the search is unreasonable because harm is done to the persons body. That's what bleeding indicates...

Thats a very loose interpretation of the Constitution and an obviously wrong one by the Courts. US Courts also have upheld slavery as legal and not in conflict with the Constitution in their past.

Wrong is wrong and you're not going to convince me that strapping a citizen down against his will and forcibly harvesting his fluids in order to incriminate him is in concert with the US Bill of Rights.

The Police doing this are in fact breaking the spirit of the law they swore to uphold. Its akin to a superior officer in the military ordering you to do something illegal. If I was a cop I would tell my boss no.

[This message has been edited by BaronVonAggie (edited 4/11/2010 1:18a).]

Ahhh BVA, no one must convince you. They Have already convinced the appellate courts including the USSCt. Although you may not think it is in keeping with your interpretation of the Bill of Rights the Courts believe it is in keeping with their interpretation. As such, the police will have no problem strapping you down by force if necessary and taking your blood whilst you protest these constitutional violations. And once they are done, a prosecutor will use that evidence against you in court and it will be allowed. And once you are convicted, the conviction will stand as will the sentence because that is the law .

it blows me away how many of you think the state has your best interest in mind. Continue being sheep, it hasnt steered you wrong so far. (oh wait, you havent thought for yourself in years)

Trust me, there are many court decisions and legal doctrines I disagree with. Some of them everyone takes for granted. I don't believe the US Constitution was intended to apply to the States. It was only through a *******ization of the 14th Amendment that this occurred. I think the creation of the "exclusionary rule" that prohibits the use of illegally seized evidence at trial was a gross violation of the separation of powers doctrine by the USSCt. I think the extensions of "the right to privacy" to abortion is a complete farce. All that being said, these are the law of the land and they will not change in my lifetime, if ever.

quote:

---

2) I'm not driving anywhere and if you stop me walking home I may ask you to drive me home since your job is to protect and serve.

---

Wonderful UPD decided it was necessary to give me a PI while I walked home. Less than 100 yards from my apartment.

Hence why i occasionally go on UPD rants, they imho are worthless.

quote:

---

If you aren't drinking and driving, you have nothing to worry about.

---

Awfully slippery slope you're headed down, isn't it?

quote:

---

give me a PI

---

Where you intoxicated in public? Then the ticket was valid.

so... in a no refusal weekend the judge has already authorized a warrant for your blood?
can they also authorize a warrant to search the pockets of any male wearing baagy pants that looks like a gangster for drugs/contraban? how about no-refusal on entering homes of white people looking for evidence of child abuse?

quote:

---

Wonderful UPD decided it was necessary to give me a PI while I walked home. Less than 100 yards from my apartment.

Hence why i occasionally go on UPD rants, they imho are worthless.

---

so, you were so intoxicated that UPD had to stop you from walking and write a ticket; and you are unhappy with them? I know some UPD officers. They aren't out looking to bust people, but when they have to they will. maybe you, not UPD are the one with a problem.


just saying.

quote:

---

so... in a no refusal weekend the judge has already authorized a warrant for your blood?

---

I think the Judge is supposed to evaluate each one on a case-by-case basis. I also think Judges sign pretty much every "no refusal" warrant submitted to them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

so... in a no refusal weekend the judge has already authorized a warrant for your blood?

---

I think the Judge is supposed to evaluate each one on a case-by-case basis. I also think Judges sign pretty much every "no refusal" warrant submitted to them.

---

so, yes...

If you recieved a ticket for PI, then someone is doing their job incorrectly. Typically a person contacted for PI is either arrested or sent on their way with a responsible party to take care of them. Writing a ticket and sending you on your way by yourself presents a dilemma for the officer that is now responsible for your welfare.

No i was arrested for a PI. But i would like to know how I was being a danger to myself. When I was that near home, clearly ambulatory and doing fine. Swinging D*** syndrome got me in a pinch.

The way to fight this in court is to refuse to submit, have a judge issue a warrant, force them to steak your blood, then go to court and challenge the legality of the warrant, and the process as a whole.

Without being harmed by the process or the officer or the judge you have no standing.

quote:

---

a privilege allowed by the government

---

Bahahaha! By what authority does the government have to give any privilege to anyone?

Perhaps you believe they have some divine right to rule over you. Even if you do believe this, it doesn't mean that they have any right to rule over me or anyone else who believes in the principle of self-ownership.

Perhaps you believe they have some "constitutional" privilege to rule over you. Even still, a piece of paper signed by twenty dead men hundreds of years ago gives the state no authority. People speak of a "social contract", but I didn't sign the contract, and neither did anyone else living today. Furthermore, nobody has the power of attorney to sign any such document on behalf of me.

The fact of the matter is the government has absolutely no right or authority to give privilege or license to anyone. Their authority is not legitimate by any standard other than violence.

The only reason government has power is because of their use of force and aggression. They are a protection racket, which forces people to pay for their "services", just like the Mafia. If people really wanted government services, they would pay for them voluntarily. Instead, if you do not pay a tribute -- a tax -- you will be kidnapped and jailed. If you try to escape this prison, you will likely be beaten or killed. The state is a gang with a flag, and a facade of legitimacy.

If you believe in freedom, if you believe in self-ownership, if you believe in individual liberty and the principle of non-aggression which states that an individual does not have the right to infringe upon the life, liberty, and property of another; then kill the state in your mind at once! The authority of the state is illegitimate!

The state is the sum of all coercive action, contrary to the free market which is the sum of all voluntary action. Although we cannot be free by getting rid of the state, we can get rid of the state by making men free!

I just think it's bad wording. This isn't a "No refusal" weekend. It's a "we have a judge up all night" weekend if I'm reading all the information correctly. Or am I missing something.

If there was a potential DWI stop at 1 PM and there was a judge available they could get this warrant then too correct?