DUI refusal to submit breathalyzer

[IMPD31323]

I have done a DUI on a moped. Could have had several on bicycles. Had a drunk guy on a lawnmower going the wrong way on Michigan St couple years ago as he was headed to the liquor store! That one was fun

 

[VUPDblue]

lol

 

[Bunnykid68]

I have done a DUI on a moped. Could have had several on bicycles. Had a drunk guy on a lawnmower going the wrong way on Michigan St couple years ago as he was headed to the liquor store! That one was fun

Did he earn in money on his way cutting yards?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Indiana definition of vehicle:

IC 9-13-2-196
"Vehicle"
Sec. 196. (a) "Vehicle" means, except as otherwise provided in this section, a device in, upon, or by which a person or property is, or may be, transported or drawn upon a highway.
(b) "Vehicle", for purposes of IC 9-14 through IC 9-18, does not include the following:
(1) A device moved by human power.
(2) A vehicle that runs only on rails or tracks.
(3) A vehicle propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated upon rails or tracks.
(4) A firetruck and apparatus owned by a person or municipal division of the state and used for fire protection.
(5) A municipally owned ambulance.
(6) A police patrol wagon.
(7) A vehicle not designed for or employed in general highway transportation of persons or property and occasionally operated or moved over the highway, including the following:
(A) Road construction or maintenance machinery.
(B) A movable device designed, used, or maintained to alert motorists of hazardous conditions on highways.
(C) Construction dust control machinery.
(D) Well boring apparatus.
(E) Ditch digging apparatus.
(F) An implement of agriculture designed to be operated primarily in a farm field or on farm premises.
(G) An invalid chair.
(H) A yard tractor.
(8) An electric personal assistive mobility device.
(c) For purposes of IC 9-20 and IC 9-21, the term does not include devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
(d) For purposes of IC 9-22, the term refers to an automobile, a motorcycle, a truck, a trailer, a semitrailer, a tractor, a bus, a school bus, a recreational vehicle, a trailer or semitrailer used in the transportation of watercraft, or a motorized bicycle.
(e) For purposes of IC 9-24-6, the term has the meaning set forth in 49 CFR 383.5 as in effect July 1, 2010.
(f) For purposes of IC 9-30-5, IC 9-30-6, IC 9-30-8, and IC 9-30-9, the term means a device for transportation by land or air. The term does not include an electric personal assistive mobility device.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Could have had several on bicycles.

Bicycles? How is that? You mean like those motorized bicycles that they sell in Broad Ripple?

Who's filing on bicycles? Geez, would a jury convict on that???

 

[CindyE]

I have done a DUI on a moped. Could have had several on bicycles. Had a drunk guy on a lawnmower going the wrong way on Michigan St couple years ago as he was headed to the liquor store! That one was fun

We know a an ex-drunk lawnmower guy, he even drove it on US35 to get to town from the trailer park! It is amazing what sounds like a good idea when you are drunk. Lucky for him, he survived some health problems and quit drinking.

 

[Mr. Habib]

So does this mean that I can legally drive my own fire truck on public streets without a DL while drunk?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So does this mean that I can legally drive my own fire truck on public streets without a DL while drunk?

Look at the statute cite on OWI and then the exemptions for vehicles.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Anyone know where I can buy a [STRIKE]party truck[/STRIKE] fire truck cheap?

 

[BE Mike]

All she has is food money though, her husband died 6 months ago

I'm truly sorry for her. Sometimes life is harsh. I suppose she has no family or church family to help. Unless she lives in some remote area, there are private organizations who can render assistance. I know that I grew up without a car. We couldn't afford a telephone. I walked or took public transportation everywhere I went (school and work). Early in my married life, we could only afford one old car. My wife would take it to and from work and to pick up the baby from the sitter and I would ride a bicycle to and from school and my part-time job. We never took public assistance. There are some folks who seem to not be able to make their lives better and always need help. Most folks with average intelligence, drive and physical abilities can improve their lot in life by the sweat of their own brow. Many individuals volunteer to provide food and meals where needed. I do know that even for the most dedicated volunteers it gets old helping those who seem unwilling to help themselves and always have a hand out.

 

[steveh_131]

Does everyone's imaginary friend not have a car? Did she lose her license because she's a drunk and has been convicted of OVWI? Does she not have insurance or proof of financial responsibility? Did she refuse the chemical test she agreed to take when she got her license? Too many unpaid tickets and she's currently suspended?

Why is it she cannot just drive to the store?

And my condolences for the loss of her husband.

You're behind on the conversation.

We are discussing the duress, or lack thereof, in requiring someone to submit to breathalyzers and blood tests when they sign a 'contract' allowing them to drive an automobile.

Because the government has created a subsidized monopoly on personal transportation, eliminating any private competition, I think it is most certainly a form of duress to deny someone access to it if they refuse to sign a 'contract'.

 

[phylodog]

I cried when I got my first drivers license, very traumatic experience. I felt like I'd sold my soul to "the man", I felt like a whore.

This has become the worst thread in the history of ever.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Just buy a fire truck. Drive where you want. Drink what you want. No 'contract', no duress, problem solved.

 

[steveh_131]

I cried when I got my first drivers license, very traumatic experience. I felt like I'd sold my soul to "the man", I felt like a whore.

This has become the worst thread in the history of ever.

The folks that get strapped to tables and needles jabbed in them at gunpoint are the traumatized ones. Not the ones doing the stabbing.

 

[phylodog]

The folks that get strapped to tables and needles jabbed in them at gunpoint are the traumatized ones. Not the ones doing the stabbing.

I've had a license for 25 years and that's never happened to me, wonder why? Oh yeah, cause I don't drink and drive. It's really difficult to avoid but I've somehow managed. For the record I never participated in a blood draw, I did see lots and lots of drunk drivers draw blood from others though. Usually they splattered more than a vial's worth of some innocent persons blood all over their windshield for them. Guess that's their right though.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The folks that get strapped to tables and needles jabbed in them at gunpoint are the traumatized ones. Not the ones doing the stabbing

Take the DataMaster then.

The only time one gets (or should get) strapped to the table is if they resist the blood draw after a warrant. If the pooooleece are strapping you to a table from the git go, then, yeah, big problem.

Being strapped to a table is a reasonable search and seizure if you want to blame wookie games and pretend you are a special little snowflake. No court is going to find that you are a special little snowflaker per se.

Don't want to be strapped to a table?

A. Don't drive home after GenCon. Walk to the hotel room.

B. Get a cab.

C. Have someone drive you home.

D. Don't go out.

E. Be cool and don't be an ass and get all liquored up.

F. Agree to the DataMaster.

G. If there is a blood draw warrant, cooperate and then challenge the draw in court.


It is "unreasonable search and seizure". No court will find you, or anyone else, is a special little snowflake beyond a blood draw.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

After reading most of this entire thread I must say "Thank you" to all who have clarified a concept for me.

I used to think that breathalyzers or blood draws violated "self incrimination" issues. However, putting into the context of searching for evidence I see the error of my logic.

The PC may be in question, but the self incrimination issue is no longer a point.

I learn something new every day.ingo:

Regards,

Doug

 

[Dead Duck]

A. Don't drive home after [STRIKE]GenCon[/STRIKE] FurCon. Walk to the hotel room.

FIFY

 

[rambone]

It is "unreasonable search and seizure".

Extremely unreasonable. Its right up there with getting your anus fingered and probed by strangers hunting for contraband.

 

[steveh_131]

If you think this conversation is stupid, then you are missing the point in a big way.

We will get the government that we ask for. As long as we ask our government to mitigate risk for us, it will continue shoving its way into every orifice of our bodies and our lives. Is that what we want? Do we want a government that bends to the will of the mob that wants to control everything we do?

If we ever want to put a stop to this, we have to man up and make a serious shift in thought processes. We need to stop being so scared of the big bad world and all of its various dangers and irresponsible people.

The government is no more effective at keeping drunks off the road than it is at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or tobacco out of the lungs of teenagers. We are trading our liberties for this ridiculous illusion of safety. It may make us feel better to see one drunk taken off the road, but we are only very marginally safer. How much more government are we willing to accept in our lives in exchange for this warm, safe, fuzzy feeling?

Why don't we just go ahead and mandate breathalyzers in the ignition system of every car? Don't like it? Ride your scooter to furrycon. Right?