It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250
I believe we have it here now. I don’t drive even after only one beer but I think its total BS. First thing one does is ask for a lawyer in that situation. Period.
People who know me will tell you I zero tolerance for people that drink & drive (pot/drugs incl.)
But this is really going too far, wonder if they’ll wait till your lawyer can get to the scene. I bet they’ll say no and take the blood sample anyways.
Next are the police trained Phlebotomists? I bet NOT!
It’s a lot longer than the news article, but here’s the actual law:
316.1932 Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.1932.html
*Florida law explictly states that a Florida drivers license or th act driving in Florida implies consent to breath/blood/urine tests when arrested for impaired driving. (Several states have this provision on their books.)
*It seems that a police officer must be making an arrest in order to request the breath/blood/urine test.
*Blood tests can only be done at a medical facility or in an ambulance or similar emergency vehicle.
*Only a physician, certified paramedic, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, other personnel authorized by a hospital to draw blood can actually draw blood.
I guess that the key question is: Do you trust police to honestly enforce the law?[/li][/list]
“If man cannot be trusted to govern himself how can he trusted to govern others” - Thomas Jefferson
Can you see a judge sitting around at a checkpoint waiting to write warrants?
Only if they are slammin some vodka.
Are we in Russian right now ;) ;D
Can you say “unconstitutional”?
I can. And although I find this objectionable, it’s not clear that it violates the constitution.
innocent until proven guilty…gone
right to not self incriminate…gone
illegal search and seizure…gone
and if you physically resist the blood draw, they just write you up as resisting an officer which carries a similar penalty - and FINE I would imagine. Since they only do this occasionally, could it be less about public safety and more about $$$?
I was under the impression that refusal to take a breath test was equal to a confession.
Im not sure why someone would want to refuse the breath test, unless they were guilty.
Im the same as Euge, if I have just one beer I will not get behind the wheel. Im fortunate that I live near a train stop. There has been more than one hungover morning where I rode the train back to town to try and find my truck, :
In NM refusal to take a breath or other field sobriety test is not an admission of guilt, it’s a totally separate charge so you can get busted for refusing, then get busted for DWI later when the judge orders the test while you’re sitting in the slammer.
And Cap, the law out here has been focusing on hungover people driving home in the morning who are still over the BA limit-you can’t win.
Wow, I never thought of that. Is it possible to fail a breath test eight hours after drinking?
Im pretty sure I could pass a field sobriety test with a hangover, not sure about a breath test. Im sure my breath aint good then, kinda like a thousand Russian soldier marched over my tongue in their stocking feet but could I fail a breath test?
Why would anyone care if law enforcement entered their house without a warrant, if they had nothing to hide?
That was actually a response to 2 comments, but I can’t seem to quote 2 people at the same time.
I’m safe, you’re safe, most of us on this site are probably safe but if you’re a heavy BMC drinker and drink an 18 pack between 6 and midnight, sleep 6 hours and get on the road you’re probably still drunk. I don’t think the liver metabolizes alcohol any faster just because you’re asleep.
In the US Supreme Court decision in the case DELAWARE V. PROUSE, 440 U. S. 648 (1979), it was found that an officer cannot pull over a lone vehicle to merely check the driver’s/vehicle’s license or registration.
However, the court stated that “The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative.” http://supreme.justia.com/us/440/648/case.html#663
Though not a specific ruling on the constitutionality of roadblocks, the suggestion is present that the court would rule in that manner were it presented as a case before the court.
Note however, that a police roadblock cannot be set-up “randomly,” they must be pre-warned (such as public posting in a newspaper or on a police department website) and adequately posted as being such when you approach it.
In another court case, evidence found after searching a car that exited a highway to avoid a roadblock was suppressed, as the police had no reason to pull the vehicle over other than the “suspicious” act of exiting the highway to supposedly “avoid” the roadblock.
Obviously, the best thing to do is to avoid driving when there is a chance you might be above the limit… unless you want to be the first to take a case to the Supreme Court to have the rule on the constitutionality of the practice.
My problem is this. Nothing is working and people are just driving around totally s*** faced. Im sure you all have seen it. Try telling someone that has had a few that they cant drive.They get defensive. Alcohol makes you think you can do anything.
Im also pissed that people just zig zag through traffic with no regard for other peoples safety, yet I get a ticket for driving ten miles over the speed limit. Why? Cause I am easier to catch.
I really wish law enforcement would take seriously our safety instead of just trying to meet ticket quotas and generate revenue.
Useless laws weaken the necessary laws - Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1748