WTF, America??!?!??
 

This is disgusting.

http://www.infowars.com/shock-video-...drawing-blood/

yep, forcing DNA samples is disgusting.

i bet that gang of police all had medical training..

...

Oh my GOD!! I can't believe that fucking country..

Keep in mind these are drunk-off-their-ass drivers who refused a simple breathalyzer test, and that a search warrant is required (per 2013's Missouri vs Mcneely supreme court decision).

And that drunk driving kills about 10,000 people in the country each year, do the math - that's around 100,000 in the last decade.

What if you refuse on religious grounds?

the worlds a little bigger than your UK block.

lmao.

If you refuse a breath test you are offered a blood test. If you refuse to cooperate it is completely legal to get a warrant and take the blood. Driving is not a right.

Exactly - All they had to do was agree to a breathalyzer test...

Another useless one-liner. What does this even mean?

Also I'm not necessarily defending the practice across the board.

it's not useless. you're taking your world view from your UK block and trying to apply it to the state of Georgia.

yes, yes you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement

of course the 'ex biker' supports every police action :upsidedow

UK as in United Kingdom? What are you even talking about?

He is not very smart. :2 cents:

Bingo.

Years ago when I was a kid, I grew up in a very rural area. The street that I lived on was a "T" intersection with a stop sign. One night a drunk driver came barreling down the road, failed to stop, ran into a huge four foot wide tree at 40 mph head on. All four people in the car were dead.

i thought you were out of UK. Seems that i was incorrect, but i think i'll find you with the next group of UK posters anyway.

Georgia is highly racist. You can bet your ass the statistics of who gets blood 'forcefully removed' doesn't match the population statistics

so you're saying you have never made a mistake?

Is that how smart you are?

In my opinion the police should not be able to force you to take a breathalyzer or draw blood.
The whole thing is becoming more and more a money scam.

Blood/alcohol level is already so low that if you have a couple of shots and a beer you get a DUI (and then the insurance company cashes in).
And now they want to lower it even more!

Like everything...it's all about money. And allowing the cops to have all this power over citizens is just part of it.

It's like when I see the motorcycle cops here in Vegas. They are out and about everyday busily pulling over soccer moms in their mini-vans for driving 40 in a 30 mph zone.
I don't even see them as "police officers". I see them as revenue collectors for the city and the insurance companies (who raise the already too-high rates when you get a ticket).

This country needs a "reset" button.

Cops need to be working on REAL crimes. And shouldn't have the ability to search you and even go inside your body (via breathalyzers and drawing blood).

I know everyone is getting used to being treated like this and everyone is apathetic about it. But I am not one of those people.

In my mind, it goes against everything I was taught about "America" and "Freedom" when I was a kid in school.
Searching people at airports, building Walls on the borders, invading other countries, spying on citizens, and now forcibly drawing blood from people...sounds like all the "evil" things we were taught about the big bad "communists" in the Soviet Union when I was a kid.

Funny how attitudes have changed. :(

"Freedom of Movement" refers to the right to travel across metropolitan, state, province, county, etc, lines.

It has nothing remotely to do with the right to dangerously operate a motor vehicle while piss drunk and put peoples' lives at risk. If you had even the attention span of a flea you would understand the distinction.

Then why don't they agree to a breathe test?..

if you were more interested in reading than looking for a reason to insult, you'd see i was posting to this: 'Driving is not a right.'

however we're done

fuck drunk drivers.

know what happens if i refuse a breathalyzer in canada?

im automatically guilty.

you guys can keep defending this

No point to this, but your post made me curous.

Top killers in the USA (per year):

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

That is a boat load of people checking out from heart disease. Wow.

Driving is in no way, shape, or form a "right".

go find people to agree with

People should have a choice

"No, I won't blow in the breathalyzer" - I'll take my chances, I have breathing difficulties

"No, I won't provide a blood test" - I'd rather go to court. I have a fear of needles

It's freedom of choice that has been "forcibly" removed.

he doesn't have to, there are several of us here already.

Whaaaaatttt? That has absolutely nothing to do with forced blood draws. Everyone has the freedom to move. To walk, to run, to use a car, take a bus, whatever.

You do not have the right to get into a vehicle drunk. Statistically speaking it affects "the liberty and rights of others" on top of being a retarded and purely selfish act.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

very good, glad you're paying attention.

it was directed at the 'driving is not a right' in a society that is based on urban sprawl, and absolutely no investment in mass transit.

everybody does not have *the right* to use a car. at least not in america, we have rules, guidelines and tests required. don't abide by any of those and you lose your priviledge of driving. especially drunks.

And what happens when they are not guilty?

You should not be forced to give a breathalyzer test OR blood if you are not drunk. Simply because a dick with a gun may think you are, that is not reason enough to forcibly strap you to a table, put you in a headlock, and take your blood.

They even strap them down and head lock them when there is zero resistance. :helpme I hate drunk drivers as much as everyone else does, but this is not the solution. If they can get HIV results through a mouth swab, I'm sure they can get an alcohol reading from saliva, stool, urine, hair, or something. But forcing them down and drawing blood is stone cold evil and a very slippery slope.

If they refuse a breathe test why would they agree to a swab?..

Your post makes no sense....

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/31...alyzer-tests-2

"drivers-records-to-be-cleared-after-faulty-breathalyzer-tests"

Seriously, he is a little too ignorant to understand . . . or he just enjoys trolling.

Like I said.


What country do you live in?

Then charges are dropped? You are approaching this as it getting a license to drive is a right, when it is not. I am pretty sure that when you get your license to drive you are agreeing to submit to tests if suspected DUI. In fact, you can lose your license simply by refusing.

Certainly this is not news to you.

Most states simply made it. to refuse is an admission of Guilt. License suspended for 1 year I think and then 3 years etc.

you'll be in Amsterdam i trust?

The right to drive? :1orglaugh How about your 4th amendment right that is supposed to guard you from unreasonable searches and seizures? I'd call holding someone down, putting them in a headlock, strapping them to a table, and taking their blood without consent, a very, very unreasonable search.

Like I said, there has to be other, less invasive ways. Drunks need to be taken off the road, there is no argument there, but this isn't the way to do it. I'd like to think Americans are better than this.

there is. it's 'if you refuse, you're guilty'.

they decided on the 'i saw this in a horror movie' option

Thread saver
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...64077182_n.jpg

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