DUI refusal to submit breathalyzer

[88GT]

If somebody raped somebody you cared about, would it be unethical to forcibly take blood or some other sample from the guy that eye witnesses say and evidence strongly indicates was the one that did the act?

with or without a valid and honest warrant?

Sorry, but it is not a "right" to have 5 guys hold someone down and forcibly remove the blood, but a duty to enforce the order of the court, who has been given such authority by "you" because of the law you agreed abide by when you filled out the application for your drivers license.

its not even so much a duty as it is a power. It's not unheard of for some DUIers to be released at the discretion of the responding officer. Obviously department policy prevails, but legally, there is no universal duty.

You know the solution to all of this? Don't drink and drive...find a sober driver or stay home and drink.

That would be great, but sleeping in a running vehicle isn't driving.

 

[PistolBob]

If you drink and drive and get caught then you get what you deserve. A trip to jail. Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for impaired people that feel like they need to drive.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Driving is a right that is being infringed.

 

[jimmythang]

with or without a valid and honest warrant?

Of course. The person was interviewed by Chris Hanson and came armed with Zima and condoms.

You are guilty until proven Innocent but if you cannot deny legal and proper investigations.

I do have a question for those in the know. Are you afforded a call to legal counsel before submitting blood work?

 

[Caleb]

Of course. The person was interviewed by Chris Hanson and came armed with Zima and condoms.

You are guilty until proven Innocent but if you cannot deny legal and proper investigations.

I do have a question for those in the know. Are you afforded a call to legal counsel before submitting blood work?

Did they read you your miranda rights?

 

[SaintsNSinners]

That would be great, but sleeping in a running vehicle isn't driving.

ding ding ding

 

[VUPDblue]

At no point during a field stop where sobriety is called into question, including after Implied Consent is read, do you have a right to counsel. Miranda doesn't matter as far as your right to counsel on a DUI investigation. If you want to not answer questions, fine by me. If you want a lawyer with you during questioning, that's fine and it's your right, so I'll just not ask you any questions that I expect to incriminate you.

 

[joe138]

Sleeping in a vehicle can be operating. It all depends on the specific facts of the case. For example, sleeping with the vehicle in gear and the operator in the drivers seat. What some call sleeping is also sometimes known as "passed out". The facts of the situation are seldom the same for each case.

 

[VUPDblue]

Sleeping in a vehicle can be operating. It all depends on the specific facts of the case. For example, sleeping with the vehicle in gear and the operator in the drivers seat. What some call sleeping is also sometimes known as "passed out". The facts of the situation are seldom the same for each case.

+1

If I find you *sleeping* in the driver's seat of your vehicle, with it running and in gear, in the middle of an intersection, you are going to go to jail if you are intoxicated.
If I find you sleeping in your vehicle, with the engine off and parked in a lot somewhere, I'll *probably* not lock you up....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If I find you *sleeping* in the driver's seat of your vehicle, with it running and in gear, in the middle of an intersection, you are going to go to jail if you are intoxicated.

But SOMETIMES the jury will not convict you, especially if your 6'4" boyfriend drags your size 2 behind over from the passenger seat before running off into the woods.

 

[VUPDblue]

touche

 

[hopper68]

I know in WI it used to be if you were found sleeping in your vehicle in a rest area and had been drinking, it depended where your keys were if you got a dui. In the ignition or on your person you were deemed in control of the vehicle. Under the seat or in the glove box you were ok. This is just what I was told as a youngster, no court cases to back it up.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

with or without a valid and honest warrant?

"With" of course.

Driving is a right that is being infringed.

It has been infringed in many aspects. I can't drive any speed I want; I can't drive in either lane I choose; I can't choose whether I want to drive without license plate lights; I must wear a seat belt; etc...etc...

 

[Bunnykid68]

"With" of course.



It has been infringed in many aspects. I can't drive any speed I want; I can't drive in either lane I choose; I can't choose whether I want to drive without license plate lights; I must wear a seat belt; etc...etc...

They need to knock it off, all this infringing going on, aint nobody got time for that

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They need to knock it off, all this infringing going on, aint nobody got time for that

Iknowright! Those stupid school buses....sheeesh! I don't think I should have to stop just because those little snot-nosed, rug-rats are getting on/off the bus. If their mommas and daddies don't teach them better to watch for traffic, that shouldn't be my problem!

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Indy, Denny and VUPD have given very concise answers to my questions. They are obviously trained and/or informed on these issues and why us dissenters are at least legally, incorrect. All the people who are parroting the .gov line, but doing it emotionally from the gut without rational and verifiable dialog, are just blowing smoke. "just getting what they deserve" won't pull any weight with me, without a concrete, repeatable standard to be judged by. The guys who actually DO THE WORK have explained exactly the repeatable standard that they use.

Emotional law enforcement doesn't sit well with me. I don't mean that Denny and VUPD can't be happy that they are sticking it to a guy, I am saying that they cant stick it to a guy just to make them happy. I do want to point out that this same standard was used against officer Bissard and he got jammed up pretty hard.

With the cracks on the emotional responses being said, I will admit that I am a malcontent here on an emotional level. I am a bit salty on the blood draw because it involves an actual assault and a violation of the integrity of your body in order to be done without consent. It's BLOOD after all....... It isn't something that can be collected like evidence. It is an act of violence that involves literally shedding blood to obtain. I suppose I feel like it is similar to beating the confession out of me, What's a little BLOOD when justice is at stake? Use a needle? or just hit me in the mouth a few times...... Blood is not a natural thing that I leave lying around, like beer bottles.

The breathalyzer is not invasive enough to elicit the gut reaction that I am having with the blood draw. A guy COULD be held long enough that he has to crap or pee, test that. Breath, waste, these ARE things that I leave around like beer bottles. Once it's no longer part of by body I cannot claim that it was violently obtained or even unconstitutional to use, I am sure that like my right to remain silent, I have a right to be anal retentive...... but just try it. Develop tests that involve evidence collected without coercion. Just my opinions, not the current law.

I have one more question for the INGO L E, Suppose that I COULD convince you that my position was the righteous and ethical one. Yes, I have subverted you and you have become a malcontent just like me. Where does that leave you when it comes to enforcing laws that you believe are incorrect? What, if any are your options? Remember, You can't enforce law on an emotional level. You can't selectively enforce laws on an ethical basis because ridiculously enough, that would be unethical! You can't think that EVERY law is just, can you? What is in your head when you have to do something that you hate, because it's the law?

I am not being a jerk, honest! I am just trying to contemplate what it's like to be in your position.

 

[VUPDblue]

I can say that there are a few laws on the books that I do not agree with. I don't want to get into details as to which ones they are because, after all, this is a public venue. What I will tell you is that there are very few "shall enforce" laws. Misdemeanors especially, do not HAVE to be enforced. I can't think of a single law that falls under my own enforcement jurisdiction that I am absolutely 100% opposed to and find enforcing to be unethical. I can think of more than one, however, that I feel is "unnecessary" at best and that I have let people off the hook on in the past...officer discretion is a good thing sometimes. OVWI is not one of those laws that I have a problem with. I have known people who were seriously injured or killed at the hands of impaired drivers, but I never thought that being an OVWI enforcement "go getter" would be my cup-o-tea. Turns out I was wrong. I like doing OVWI arrests and I think they are important. There are too many impaired drivers out there who wreak all kinds of havoc against unsuspecting, innocent people. The procedures for doing those types of investigations/arrests are very strict and time consuming but necessary. We have to follow the law of the land and the constitution. I don't run around patting myself on the back every time I make an OVWI arrest, but I sleep like a baby knowing that I follow the law and do my minuscule part in protecting the innocent motoring public. I set a goal for myself in 2013 for the amount of OVWI arrests I wanted to make, I didn't get there, but I tried. In 2014 I have the same goal and I'm optimistic about achieving it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

For every DUI stop an officer makes how many of the other drinkers make it home safely and no one knows or reads about?

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

I can say that there are a few laws on the books that I do not agree with. I don't want to get into details as to which ones they are because, after all, this is a public venue. What I will tell you is that there are very few "shall enforce" laws. Misdemeanors especially, do not HAVE to be enforced. I can't think of a single law that falls under my own enforcement jurisdiction that I am absolutely 100% opposed to and find enforcing to be unethical. I can think of more than one, however, that I feel is "unnecessary" at best and that I have let people off the hook on in the past...officer discretion is a good thing sometimes. OVWI is not one of those laws that I have a problem with. I have known people who were seriously injured or killed at the hands of impaired drivers, but I never thought that being an OVWI enforcement "go getter" would be my cup-o-tea. Turns out I was wrong. I like doing OVWI arrests and I think they are important. There are too many impaired drivers out there who wreak all kinds of havoc against unsuspecting, innocent people. The procedures for doing those types of investigations/arrests are very strict and time consuming but necessary. We have to follow the law of the land and the constitution. I don't run around patting myself on the back every time I make an OVWI arrest, but I sleep like a baby knowing that I follow the law and do my minuscule part in protecting the innocent motoring public. I set a goal for myself in 2013 for the amount of OVWI arrests I wanted to make, I didn't get there, but I tried. In 2014 I have the same goal and I'm optimistic about achieving it.

VUPD, again you are concise and right to the point. Officer discretion..... That answers my question perfectly and Does effectively nullify the circumstance that I bring up. It is a good effective way to keep things on the level, just as long as everybody follows your number 1 rule. GO on and give them hell. They do indeed deserve it. Just please don't ever let them make you a jerk. At least several of your colleagues HAVE become jerks. We even see them trotting off to jail themselves on occasion.

Carry on!

 

[BE Mike]

For every DUI stop an officer makes how many of the other drinkers make it home safely and no one knows or reads about?

I know a politically connected attorney who doesn't seem to be able to go through the day without drinking. Besides his drinking apparently being out of control, he drives while impaired. I don't think that he has ever been arrested, but I'm not sure. He gives the impression that he is smarter than any cop and could get away with this for many more years even if called on it. I'm also sure that he feels that he can drive as well or better than the average sober person. He is ignorant as to how alcohol impairs him. In some ways he is just like most drivers who think that they are above average in every way. They may be Hoosiers, but they live in the state of denial.