Yeah, that's how it works over here. So really in the USA they can just do a forced blood test?

It's about having options. You know, choice. Something you should have the freedom of.

Swab, urine, whatever. But not hold you down and take blood from you. That's just evil.

I'm sure a few smart people could think of a better way to achieve the same goal.

Just spit balling here but something like this... Hey Bob, here are your options. A, B, C, D, whatever. Because you refused the breathalyzer and we have reason to believe you're drunk, you're going to stay in this holding cell until we get one of them. You get to choose which one it is. Then as a fail safe, the toilet in the drunk tank collects their urine which can then be sent to a lab. ANYTHING is better than taking blood without consent and holding them down in the process. That's just horrible.

news to me.


Georgia is one of numerous states that enforce ?no refusal? checkpoints where police can forcibly draw blood. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not unconstitutional for the state to hold down Americans and forcefully withdraw blood. A January 2013 ruling affirmed that a warrant must be obtained for the process, although police could dispense with the warrant requirement in an ?emergency?.

It is really pretty simple; if you want to be allowed to drive, you must agree to the rules. The 4th Amendment does not apply.

It should be noted that despite the thread's title, the USA isn't the only country that does this. Germany & Sweden are on that list for sure, you can probably find other examples out there.

i *think* if you refuse over here, you lose your license for a period of time but i am unsure about the dui charge and how it is handled.

this is new shit btw



As more state and local law enforcement officials enact "no-refusal" DUI enforcement policies, it has become increasingly important for motorists to understand how the law deals with those who refuse blood alcohol tests.

Motorists suspected of drunk driving typically are asked to submit to a breathalyzer test to determine blood-alcohol concentration (BAC). A positive test result (0.08 percent or higher) triggers DUI charges and most often leads to a guilty plea or conviction, while refusal to take the test typically results in an automatic driver's license suspension.

Some drivers refuse testing, which cannot easily be done without the subject's cooperation, in order to sidestep a potentially serious DUI conviction. Prosecutors often decline to file charges in DUI cases that lack evidence of actual intoxication.

The Rise of No-Refusal Policies
This problem theoretically could be overcome by obtaining a search warrant for the DUI suspect's breath or blood, which presents some logistical hurdles. Before advances in technology, paper warrants had to be brought to the judge's home or office; the process often would take hours. Meanwhile, the DUI suspect would sober up at a rate of about 0.01 percent (BAC) per hour.

All states have "implied consent" laws in place, which punish the refusal to take a blood alcohol test, however many states have found these laws insufficient to deter drunk driving. A 2003 NHTSA study found that implied consent laws fail to significantly reduce blood alcohol test refusals. The study also concluded that suspects who avoid testing often avoid serious DUI penalties.

By the time the officer obtained a warrant and secured a blood draw by a licensed health care professional, the suspect might already be sober or at least under the 0.08 percent BAC threshold.

Now, officers in many jurisdictions are able to contact on-call judges remotely and have an electronic warrant (PDF, NHTSA) sent directly to their smart phones or computers, solving the time delay issues. These are called no-refusal policies because refusal of a court-ordered BAC test (via warrant) can lead to more serious contempt charges.

You can still refuse a BAC test when no-refusal policies are in effect but you can't legally refuse a search warrant for a BAC test. Texas police are even authorized to use force to obtain a blood sample with a warrant. So technically you are free to refuse; but refusal is becoming a much less attractive option for suspected drunk drivers.

Currently, at least 30 states have the legal authority in place to conduct no-refusal initiatives, though not all of these states are actively putting them into practice, and many places use no-refusal policies during selective time periods. State and local jurisdictions often have high-profile no-refusal weekends during holidays and other periods of high alcohol consumption in order to deter drunk drivers in the first place.

Criticism of No-Refusal Initiatives
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is one of the most vocal critics of no-refusal policies, claiming they violate drivers' rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The ACLU also claims no-refusal initiatives raise questions regarding medical privacy, specifically whether any additional data gathered from a blood draw is being used.

The policies also have been challenged in the courts but so far none have prevailed. Ask a DUI attorney in your state to find out more about DUI enforcement policies in your neighborhood.

- See more at: http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/n....iDwkQjuE.dpuf

if i smell it on your breath your going to get one of them. breath or blood. drunks kill a bunch of people. :2 cents:

You are right. DUI isn't a real crime.

Driving and being forced into giving blood are two totally different things, and the 4th amendment very well may apply. That is why it's going to court soon.

I'm just thankful I can use my foreign drivers license when I drive in the USA now. The police and US courts don't have the authority to take it, no matter how much I fuck up on the roads. :1orglaugh

5:00 mark

WTF does that have to do with giving some fucking goof ball cop the right to do that, it should be a straight up guilty if you refuse to blow like it is here, that kind of shit is wrong.

why are they even defending it?

either stupid or troll? :upsidedow

haha, yeah, I would like to see you test that theory; I would not advise it though.

Since you do not live here, the suggestion that you do something to change the laws would be a waste of time. As you do not live here, this really is none of your business. :2 cents:

you don't live in the state either

means it's none of your business by your logic

umm, that shit is fucking hilarious, the whole fucking thing! :thumbsup :1orglaugh




you can't arrest me, i'm blind.

well, that's neither here nor there.



gold right there.

I tend to agree that's the best approach, and in fact in many US states this is exactly how it's handled.

The rationale against it is that in many many cases defendants who refuse a test are able to get off in court due to lack of evidence, so much so that in certain jurisdictions without an actual test the case was often not even prosecuted.

i suspect it boils down to a constitutional matter and how evidence is used and such, haven't researched it but based on what i posted earlier from findlaw. but as it layed out, drunk drivers can avoid a dui otherwise.

p.s. richard, i am not advocating holding people down and jabbing them with syringes, i am simply sharing what may be the roadblock on why a refusal to get checked is not a straight up guilty.

For as long as I have to travel there, it is my business.

There is nothing to test. A foreign drivers license is not property of any US state or the US government. They can't take it. Even if some testosterone driven dick with a gun snatched it because he didn't know the law, I get a new one as soon as I come home. My license can not be revoked in the USA, for any reason. They simply don't have the authority.

Hmmm, how about terrorism? You would think with the amount of resources spent and liberties removed that it's way up there. What is it, 3 this year? Oh, I know - they're doing such a great job "protecting" us that it's been eradicated.

yeah, they always say: "We haven't been hit since 9-11"

What they leave out is: We weren't "hit" for 200 years before that either and we didn't have to give up our freedom.

And the next time a handful of crazy fucks decide to do something...none of this bullshit will stop them anyway.

The thing about being a successful terrorist is, you have do something unexpected. And that is exactly why when it happens again, no one will be ready for it. I'm not talking about the coaxed FBI nonsense where they walk someone through a bombing and arrest them beforehand. I mean a real attack that no one sees coming and are not prepared for. Or perhaps luck would be on their side and drills would be staged that day, again.

+1

It's all reactionary and window-dressing.

hands-on works, maybe not our method, nevertheless.

El Al, the national airline of Israel, has been the target of terrorist threats for decades. However, despite an ongoing climate of tension, the airline hasn’t dealt with an immediate incident since a failed hijacking in 1970.

In part, because they use profiling - it works.

Yup, that is the aim of terrorism - to elicit a disproportionate response to the actual damage caused.

And I'm with you on the collective freak-outs about any scattered incidents that might be related to "terrorism", compared to the routine thousands of deaths each year due to drunk drivers, cancer, etc. If 1/4 the amount spent on the "War On Terror" the past decade had been diverted to cancer research, we'd have saved a lot more lives.

That being said, part of the reason we haven't had a major attack since 9/11 is indeed the fact that the West (spearheaded by the USA) did systematically destroy al-Qaeda's ample funding sources around the world. That more than any military action rendered them impotent as an organization even before Osama's death, it's pretty fascinating to read about how they did it in detail. And by "al-Qaeda" I mean the established entity & infrastructure that made 9/11 happen, not the 100 amateur-league extremist groups like the ones in Syria/Iraq/etc that tack on that name in hopes of getting clout & recognition. Those groups have little-to-no connection to the organization built by bin Laden & Al-zawahiri.

it does?

:1orglaugh

you want machine gun nests and 'we are gonna search you now, cause we don't like you'

aye, there's the rub.

our constitution says stop right there

I was thinking more along these lines, in context of airline security:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...air-passengers

Not sure why you bother Richard.

All he does is take an opposing view to stir up shit. Time and time again, there are a few einstein types like that on here...

I don't know your citizenship status, but I know when I drive in a foreign country I have to play by their rules.

As far as the second part I was not suggesting they can revoke your Thai license but they can for sure revoke your permission to drive here.

Yep, that is a problem.

Agreed. but the alternative shouldn't be a watered-down security policy that is window-dressing at best. Since 2005, in the NYC subway system, there are tables set up at various stations manned by police officers doing "random" searches - like every 5th person has their backpack searched. You can refuse the search - but then you can't ride the train - at that moment. You are free to leave, unsearched and unimpeded. Of couse, if you're a terrorist, you can just cross the street and enter the station from the other side. Guess how many terrorists have been caught using this method - in place since 2005? Zero.

ummm, all I was doing was explaining the legality of it; I was not trying to tell them what they should or should not do. It is pretty easy to take an opposing view here since there are at least two in every discussion. :2 cents:

I obviously still have to follow the rules of the road. What I'm saying is, if I did do something that could otherwise result in my US license being revoked (which I don't have anymore), they can not take my Thai one. So I no longer have a US license, thus there is nothing to take or forbid me from driving.

As hard as this is to believe, the USA has no mechanism in place to even know my foreign license is legit or not. No DB or anything. So long as my license is valid from another country, they can not revoke anything, or stop me from driving there. They can't say, "DWB, you drive like a dick head, you're no longer allowed to drive here." Because there is no system in place to add foreigners to that forbids them from driving in the USA if they are on a legal license from elsewhere. But even better, it could be fake and they wouldn't even know. A global DB of licensed drivers does not exist yet. I'm sure someday such a thing will happen, and then things may change, but until then... Foreigners are hell on wheels.

What a pesky rag that thing is. :upsidedow

Spend nine years looking after a husband left disabled due to a drunk driver and then bury him for complications related to that accident and then talk to me about how bad it is to lower the level.

Libertarians don't believe in laws or the need for them.

my god what a joke

That's just ignorant.

And sorry for your loss Sarah Jayne.

I'm assuming the person that did that was WAY over whatever made-up limits the govt. imposes.

My view is that pulling over people who have had a couple of drinks and declaring them "DUI" and destroying them financially is bullshit and has nothing to do with safety.
Just my opinion.

The ironic part of it is this: cops that get pulled over drunk do not get tickets or DUI's. They get a warning and sent on their way. Even ex-cops get that courtesy.

And when I lived in S.C. we had an office in the downtown section. Everyone in town knew we were a porn company but it was a "secret" if you know what I mean.
So we donated all kinds of money to the city for various projects to keep things "friendly".

And I also wrote a ten grand a year check to the police dept.
That got me and my partner and our wives little stickers that we put on our bumpers of our vehicles.
The cops called it the "get out of jail" sticker.

With that sticker you never got a speeding ticket or any problems like DUI (because they would just wave you past).

As I said...it's a money scam.
Does setting such a low blood/alcohol level save some lives? I don't know. I'm unfamiliar with the stats on people whose blood/alcohol level is right on the line of .008
I know for a fact people have blown that after doing nothing more than gargling with Listerine within a few minutes of a breathalzyer.

My guess is that drunk driving is a problem when it actually IS drunk driving. Not when it's a couple coming home from dinner after sharing a bottle of wine with their meal.

Drunks are drunks. They have addiction problems and are often nailed for DUI over and over and over again. They don't give a shit. They don't even care about having a drivers license.

And sometimes normal people go out and get wasted and try to drive home and cause death and misery.

Most times not. (thank God)

If the authorities were actually worried about our "safety" (and not making money off of people)...then they would simply make it illegal to drive an automobile to any place of business that serves alcohol.

But they don't.

It would be so simple for these local politicians to handle. Put that law in place and then have public transportation running.

Instead...public transportation shuts down in the evening. Even here in Vegas.

I live in the N.W.
There is a nice bus that runs from down the street and goes right to the strip.
Last bus runs at 11 p.m.
WTF???

So...people drive.

It's all about money. The older I get, the more I realize that EVERYTHING is about money. Religion = Money. Laws = Money. Death = Money. Prisons = Money. :(

Even tho you have been acclimated by fabricated CNN:

You are correct, Driving is a privilege.
Driving is legally defined as using a vehicle to conduct commerce.

However; Driving to travel is defined as moving from point A to point B for private or leisurely purposes.

Driving on American Roads is a Constitutional Right, not a State-Granted 'Privilege'

If you are traveling in your vehicle on vacation or just farting around on a joy ride. It is your right... No privilege intended.