Welcome To Texas....Now Roll Up Your Sleeve And Make A Fist!

[Jagger69]

I am totally against drunk driving but this trampling of the U.S. and the Texas constitutions by the Texas legislature has really got me wondering how much longer either one of those documents will continue to have any validity. I will be greatly reassured if and when the courts throw this new "law" out.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6548493.html

I love it here in Texas for many reasons but this type of thing isn't one of them.

 

[Ace Bandage]

The only part of this law that is tolerable is that it only applies to previous offenders who have harmed someone before. It's not like every traffic stop is ending with someone getting their blood drawn. I agree though, this is an egregious violation of constitutional rights.

 

[Friday on my mind]

I thought it was the law everywhere that if you refused the breath test you automatically lost your license and then the poilce would use the standard sobriety tests they do,walk a line ,touch your nose etc to prove you were drunk to get your suspension to be longer.

Don't tell me all those liberal judges in Texas aren't buying what the police say.:1orglaugh

But maybe its different in Texas?:dunno:

But forced to give blood and have a needle put in ya with no right to refuse seems extreme.

 

[Jagger69]

The only part of this law that is tolerable is that it only applies to previous offenders who have harmed someone before. It's not like every traffic stop is ending with someone getting their blood drawn. I agree though, this is an egregious violation of constitutional rights.

That is one of the conditions but not the only one. These are the conditions under which the law may be invoked:

The new law will allow police to order a blood test of a DWI suspect when:

• The suspect refuses to provide one voluntarily.

• The suspect is a repeat offender.

• Someone other than the suspect died, or is expected to.

• Someone other than the suspect suffers bodily injury and is transported to a hospital.

• At least one of the passengers is a child under 15.

So, if you're in wreck and a passenger thinks he has whiplash and goes to the hospital, the cop can make the singular decision on his own to stick you with a needle.

But maybe its different in Texas?:dunno:

Maybe? Just ask any Texan.....:1orglaugh

 

[tittenman]

Wow thats a pretty radical change for the US. I am not really up on US legislature so forgive me if I sound thick here. How often do you think this will be exercised in practice, the main aim seems to suggest that this perhaps be utilized as deterrent, so whereas in the past if you refused to give blood they could not demand it to determine blood alcohol level. Now it seems the tables are swinging the other way so refusing to give blood gives you very little room for maneuver after sept 1st. But as Friday said maybe its just Texas???

 

[Jagger69]

Wow thats a pretty radical change for the US. I am not really up on US legislature so forgive me if I sound thick here. How often do you think this will be exercised in practice, the main aim seems to suggest that this perhaps be utilized as deterrent, so whereas in the past if you refused to give blood they could not demand it to determine blood alcohol level. Now it seems the tables are swinging the other way so refusing to give blood gives you very little room for maneuver after sept 1st. But as Friday said maybe its just Texas???

The law previously stipulated that, if the suspected drunk driver refused to take a breathalyzer test, the officer could ask for a warrant to have blood drawn. Now, the officer has total discretion on this decision with no judicial review beforehand. It's seems blatantly unconstitutional as unreasonable search and seizure to me but....again....as FOMM said, maybe things are different in here in Texas. Maybe we don't believe in the constitution down here. I don't think the legislature does, that's for damn sure.

 

[girk1]

I thought it was the law everywhere that if you refused the breath test you automatically lost your license and then the poilce would use the standard sobriety tests they do,walk a line ,touch your nose etc to prove you were drunk to get your suspension to be longer.



But forced to give blood and have a needle put in ya with no right to refuse seems extreme.

That quote by the Prosecutor stood out to me as well .."Right now the perception is it's OK to drink & Drive as long as you refuse...to take the breath test,& you'll get off.":dunno:

Not many people believe that just because you refuse a breath test that you will get off FREE.


I was once pulled over on my way to WORK by a nice female officer for 'swerving' as I attempted to grab a music cd/cassette I dropped. She let me go because it was 'obvious' I was going to work(not intoxicated), but I can only imagine her having the ability to hold me & have my blood taken if I refused a breath test:eek: simply because I was running late for work & didn't feel a breath test was necessary.

Too awful to imagine.

 

[tittenman]

The law previously stipulated that, if the suspected drunk driver refused to take a breathalyzer test, the officer could ask for a warrant to have blood drawn. Now, the officer has total discretion on this decision with no judicial review beforehand. It's seems blatantly unconstitutional as unreasonable search and seizure to me but....again....as FOMM said, maybe things are different in here in Texas. Maybe we don't believe in the constitution down here. I don't think the legislature does, that's for damn sure.

Going slightly off topic this sort of reminds me of the change in the UK law made in 1994 with respect to your rights whilst being arrested by police officers.

When you are arrested now this is what is normally read out to you:
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

Previously these rights would have been read out to you:

"You do not have to say anything if you do not wish to do so, but anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law."

Although the difference to the wording is only subtle, the implications can be huge in practice as the newer wording is specifically more aggressive in its stance, and erodes your civil rights in these issues.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Going slightly off topic this sort of reminds me of the change in the UK law made in 1994 with respect to your rights whilst being arrested by police officers.

When you are arrested now this is what is normally read out to you:
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

Previously these rights would have been read out to you:

"You do not have to say anything if you do not wish to do so, but anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law."

Although the difference to the wording is only subtle, the implications can be huge in practice as the newer wording is specifically more aggressive in its stance, and erodes your civil rights in these issues.

Here(the US) those rights and you being told them is known as the "Miranda" rights after court case in the 60s by the same name.Let me add that some pro police power types would say that when someone is not advised of those rights and gets off due to that which they don't always but when they do they call it getting off on a "technicality".In some circles your rights are just a technicality,we know your guilty lol.

 

[Hot Mega]

This what happens when you have a circumstance which is statistically inconsequential but the associated rhetoric is disproportionately hyperbolic.

Case in point, I just read a story where a driver of a minivan full of kids was going the wrong way. No alcohol was involved but the accident was responsible for deaths of 4 kids and 4 adults.

Since no alcohol was involved, it's just a tragedy. If alcohol was involved the issue would have been alcohol and a drunk driver. I have no problem charging drivers above the legal limit accordingly for such crimes. But the sensationalism creates an unfounded and disproportionate reaction.

If you go by the rhetoric, you'd believe drivers over the legal limit were causing accidents and killing people "everyday" and more than anything else. When the reality is; excessive speed kills more, distracted drivers cause the overwhelming majority of accidents and fatigued drivers are the most dangerous while drivers over the legal limit cause the vast minority of accidents.

Don't attack the messenger...those are the mere facts.