Florida about to have "no refusal" checkpoints

Originally posted by crimvelvet
I will say it again I do not drink. So why the heck should I allow some bozo to shove a needle into me, Just because I want to travel on the highway my taxes paid for?

You're not getting a needle shoved in your arm UNLESS an LEO believes with probable cause that you are DUI, AND you refuse to blow into a tube.

Don't make this a bigger deal than it is.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


While I don't intend to drink and drive but what they are doing constitutes an illegal search and with a bit of forethought you could have quite a bit of fun with this

I will just have to bring my macaw* along. The bird bites and if they hand me a breathalyzer I cannot gaurantee its safety will look like a big black nut to him and it will wind up in pieces in a second. If they try to hold it for me I cannot gaurentee theirs either (Granted to date there has yet to be a fatal parrot bite but it could be painful)

and what makes it worse for the jackbooted police is that the bird is on the CITES endangered species list that brings the Feds into it. (Fish and game at the very least). If they do bring me in for 'resisting' or destruction of property my first call will be to PETA not a lawyer.
Somehow I think I will get waved through


*He has spent most of his life behind bars, has no respect for a uniform

reply to post by Schaden


What makes his belief right?

Pooping in my mouth and calling it a sundae, does not a sundae make.

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by GovtFlu


We spent most of our time on checkpoint writing chickencrap cites & impounding vehicles from unlicensed un-impaired drivers..

Good. No license ? What the hell are they doing on the road. ?

Driving while sober? endangering nobody? minding their own business?.. people who were detained, denied their freedom in the land of the free based on zero probable cause?.. that's what the hell they were doing. Not having a drivers license is an administrative infraction that's become a misdemeanor crime.. i.e failure to pay the state fees is now a crime.

Mark my words and remember where you read it first.. soon enough sober people minding their own business detained absent PC at checkpoints who are on a "terrorist watch list" will be subject to additional investigation / scrutiny... warrants ARE already probable cause, so will being on a govt list.

It would take you 15+ years of street / court / investigative experience to see just how twisted the game has become and fully understand how far 'authorities' have deviated from "the spirit of the law(s)".

reply to post by Dilligaf28


I'll take it under consideration.

I see you're relatively new here. Give it some time and you'll understand better why it becomes necessary to become smug, cynical or sarcastic. Some posters can't seem grasp a point until you've beaten it into them.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


It happens to the all of us at some time or another; especially when debating a topic about which we are passionate My passion for this topic is especially high due to the fact that as a child my heart quit beating for over a minute while in the emergency room after an accident caused by a drunk driver. In a way I have been "killed" by a drunk driver already so I do not want to repeat it again.

I need someone to clarify something for me. As I have read the thread it would seem that the OP had some form of inaccurate information according to some posts deeper into the thread.

Are these roadblock style checkpoints or are people being pulled over at random and just checked? I wan

Originally posted by kozmo
Perhaps you can explain how a check-point does not violate the 4th Amendment?

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz

Read it.

reply to post by kozmo


I have gotten that way a time or to debating a chemtrailer so I can understand.
2nd line

reply to post by Schaden

Tell me, which one gives you the right to refuse a breathalyzer, when LEO has probably cause to believe you are DUI

That is not the issue. It is 100% testing at a checkpoint including using a blood test drawn with a syringe. The refusal to submit to a test is considered evidence that you are a criminal and a judge is on site to issue a search warrant.

...a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.

It's already being done in several counties, and now Unfried is working to bring it to the Tampa Bay area....

Supporters, though, say you could see the "no refusal" checkpoints in the Bay area by October....

reply to post by BigTimeCheater
This will make a difference, although I doubt it will be very big. There are people on the roads that have multiple DUI's and it just doesn't seem to make a difference to them. Give them a ticket, lock them up for a while, suspend their license, it doesn't matter to them. They will drive anyway.

reply to post by Schaden


I'm very familiar with it. The Supreme Court has offered many opinions that fly in the face of the Constitution. The one allowing corporations to buy elections comes immediately to mind. So, simply citing case law does not make it right. If I am correct, nowhere in that decision does the SC rule that stabbing people with needles was Constitutional or permissable. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - and I'm sure you will.

so it goes like this:

Sam is driving down the road when he comes across a checkpoint. The person on the checkpoint asks him for papers. Sam then said "but this is America only those in Nazi Germany would do such a thing"
"Well then we're only doing this because of security" said the person on the checkpoint

meanwhile in the 1930s Nazi Germany

Otto was driving his car when he comes across a checkpoint. The Gestapo asks"your papers please"
Otto handed out his papers

reply to post by saabster5

Temporary or not. There is a thing in the U.S. called precedent. If you can get your foot in the door on something, it starts to gain precedent as far as law goes.

Yes
As far as I can tell the precedent was set when the US people allowed the seatbelt law to stand. Note the orginal law showed up in 1974 at least in South Carolina. I remember it well.

Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt. The court ruled that such an arrest for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment... en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by Schaden

 

I'm very familiar with it. The Supreme Court has offered many opinions that fly in the face of the Constitution. The one allowing corporations to buy elections comes immediately to mind. So, simply citing case law does not make it right. If I am correct, nowhere in that decision does the SC rule that stabbing people with needles was Constitutional or permissable. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - and I'm sure you will.

The constitution says the SC is the arbiter of what laws are constitutional. Ergo checkpoints are constitutional.

Well if you people that live in FL let this fly, don't be surprised if next they decide it would be a great idea to frisk everyone and look for drugs and weapons. Might as well right? There is a judge on site now, so refuse the pat down, a judge just puts a signature on a pre printed warrant and they take you in for a full strip search with a cavity search bonus down at the station.

reply to post by getreadyalready

I guarantee that driving at a 0.08 BAC level is barely noticeable, and I also guarantee that driving while texting, doing paperwork, drinking hot coffee, or eating a Big Mac is EXTREMELY Noticeable!

.08 used to be the legal limit in Australia! This was fine for you average healthy male between the ages 18 - 65. What they found was it was not a safe limit for your average woman (some women it is not noticeable, most it is noticeable), sick people, those over 65 or when alcohol is combined with "Smoking illegal stuff".! They could not discriminate against any of those mentioned groups and the limit was dropped to .05 for all despite it being fairly safe for your average healthy male 18-65!

I also agree that there are way to many distractions & other things people do in cars that make them as dangerous as a low range drink driver!

reply to post by misterhype

really my point is this: plan ahead and don't set it up to where you "have no choice" but to drive drunk.

We are planning ahead. Next year it will be road blocks at any time they feel like, taking blood,DNA, fingerprints, grabbing your privates searching your vehicle and helping themselves to anything of yours they feel like taking.

I suggest you read this web site if you think the cops are the "good guys"

Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime....

Eighty percent of property forfeited to the US during the previous decade was seized from owners who were never even charged with a crime! Over $7 billion has been forfeited to the federal government since 1985
www.fear.org...

Cops have the LEGAL right to go through your wallet and take every dollar you have. It is done all the time to interstate truckers who carry cash to pay for fuel.

Now are still willing to allow these guys to feel up you,your spouse and kids and then rob you blind?

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Actually I was more concerned about you judging them as a piece of sh*t. Seems pretty harsh for someone who just had a few drinks.

Drunk driver =/= "someone who just had a few drinks".

Drunk drivers are out of control maniacs, people whose addiction leads them to put other peoples' lives at risk for the sake of their own personal amusement and convenience.

Wrong. No such crime as "drunk driving", ..

LMK where Cal law, or ANY state laws, say anything about operating a vehicle "drunk".. Someone is considered "drunk" when they are alcohol intoxicated and "unable to care for their safety or the safety of others" (reference 647(f)PC).. totally different from being "under the influence".

You will notice that DUI crimes consist of 2 charges, 23152(a) AND 23152(b).. if the breathalyzer is broken or wont calibrate and there are no chemical sample evidence kits.. weather or not a driver is at .08 BAC is IRRELEVANT.. all that matters is the officers opinion you were "under the influence".

If/when scientific div / breath 'machine' returns results of .08 BAC.. people are "ad-charged", additionally charged, with 23152(b)VC.. never mind it goes against double jeopardy: being charged twice for 1 crime.

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence
of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by
weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol
per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of
breath.

reply to post by crimvelvet


Don't be an idiot there is a limit to what they can get you Americans are just causing yourselves fear for no reason you only get the needle if you refuse the first test. As far as i'm concerned we have it in Australia and if it stops idiots from drink driving it's a good thing it might just save your life even if you don't drink.

What i mean is we get breathalysed first with a prelim machine if that shows above 0.5 you go to the station where they get you on a proper machine which is more accurate if you refuse that they will get a court order for a blood test same as what they have proposed for you.

Can't believe you guys want someone drunk on your roads no wonder your country is falling apart because of people with your train of thought absolutely stupid some people are.

Originally posted by Schaden
[The constitution says the SC is the arbiter of what laws are constitutional. Ergo checkpoints are constitutional.

And SC decisions have been over-turned by subsequent Justices when a new challenge arises.

Turning to precedent: The slow march toward a police state began with the SC decision that you referenced and now we see it progressing to where police can force you to bear witness against yourself by forcing you to submit to an involutary blood test. And yet, somehow you can't see it!? Puzzling indeed.

Due process is being destroyed and I am alarmed at the number of people who condone it. This country is certainly in dire straights.