If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   If a cop swears he smells alcohol on your breath, then you will be pinned down in five point restraint and the rubber-stamp warrant will be hypodermically executed   (sacurrent.com) divider line 189
    More: Asinine, rubber stamps, constraint satisfaction, Bexar County, Hereford, crime lab, search warrants, warrants, Texas District  
•       •       •

10501 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-20 01:20:43 PM
To be fair, that's only if you refuse the roadside sobriety test.

Wait, that doesn't make it any better...
 
2012-12-20 01:22:09 PM
Kinky.
 
2012-12-20 01:22:12 PM
Well, if you're not doing anything wrong why should you have a problem with this......citizen.... Right????

So what's next...sexual assault in the region, so they take....er....samples? I want to deposit my sample directly with the hot dispatcher...
 
2012-12-20 01:22:51 PM
I'm currently posting in the near-center of 'The Beef Capital of the World,' so I'm getting a kick...

/don't live here
//it stanks
 
2012-12-20 01:23:52 PM
And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??

/or will you have to sue?
 
2012-12-20 01:27:58 PM
Maybe you should just blow into the breathalizer? or not drive drunk?
 
2012-12-20 01:27:59 PM
Now that states are starting to realize the cash-cow that is DUI offenses, this will only get worse. With support from a nation full of reactionary busybodies, we're on our way to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation when it comes to DUIs. Already, local media in my area are discussing mandatory blow-start vehicles for everyone - not just people with past DUIs or DWIs.
 
2012-12-20 01:28:11 PM

fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??

/or will you have to sue?


No, they won't apologize, and if you sue, it will get thrown out because they'll have police testimony establishing probable cause even if the test comes back negative.

/don't feel bad, because police crime labs are never wrong
 
2012-12-20 01:28:12 PM

fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??

/or will you have to sue?


Nope, and good luck with the lawsuit. You'll probably want to move after filling it.
 
2012-12-20 01:30:20 PM
That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.
 
2012-12-20 01:30:38 PM
Wait?! Warrants are being sworn out on oaths of probable cause! Unconstitutional ™! Why is this not a breaking news tagged story?????
 
2012-12-20 01:31:26 PM
First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.
 
2012-12-20 01:31:31 PM

ElLoco: I'm currently posting in the near-center of 'The Beef Capital of the World,' so I'm getting a kick...

/don't live here
//it stanks


He's right - I grew up there.
 
2012-12-20 01:32:00 PM
How much do they bill you for it even if it comes back clean?
 
2012-12-20 01:32:06 PM
I'm ok with this. The founding fathers couldn't foresee the reckless use of automobiles so the 4th amendment is obviously outdated and no longer needed in this day and age. I for one applaud our government for making progress in this area where it is needed badly.

Your rights are not more important than the children, so just STFU.
 
2012-12-20 01:32:31 PM
They've been doing this in Tennessee for some time, including in our county. There was so much push back from the medical guys here (All of our SO Medical guys are volunteers) who could actually do the field draws, and from the EMS agencies because of the questionable constitutionality of it, that they had to hire a private firm with forensic nurses to do it.
 
While I'm generally supportive of any aggressive measure to go after drunk driving assholes, this is far, far too far.
 
2012-12-20 01:33:20 PM
FTFA: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant

The surge in no-refusal statewide began over worries of serious declines in DWI convictions in recent years. Judge David Hodges, then a judicial liaison with the Texas Center for the Judiciary, told the Legislature in early 2011 that since Texas implemented its Driver's Responsibility Law and the surcharge that it carries for DWI convicts, defendants grew more likely to fight DWI's in court, pushing judges and prosecutors to accept reduced charges instead of letting cases languish in court dockets for years. In 2005, statewide DWI arrests stood at 99,501, with convictions at 63,132. By 2009, the state saw 102,309 DWI arrests but only 44,777 convictions.

Rather than repealing the surcharge, police and prosecutors sought instead to bolster cases with more evidence. "Of those cases without a breath test that were going to trial, we were losing nearly 50 percent of them," said Herberg. "The juries were quite frankly demanding more evidence. The officer's word just wasn't good enough anymore."


Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?
 
2012-12-20 01:33:43 PM

fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??
/or will you have to sue?


Maybe if they accidentally gave you the AIDS, but good luck proving that too.

 
2012-12-20 01:33:52 PM
Freedoms!

Fark Tejas!
 
2012-12-20 01:33:53 PM
How long before someone gets a serious or incurable infection from a draw with a dirty needle? Look at the recent case of a strip search where one surgical glove was used for two people.
 
2012-12-20 01:34:27 PM
In my area, you are given a breathalyzer on the road side. If you are over the limit OR if you refuse to take a breathalyzer, you are brought back to the local station.  There, you are given the option of another breathalyzer or a blood test.  You may refuse both, but if you do, then you are assumed guilty - and you are told this fact very clearly.  Not taking the test means you are guilty.
 
2012-12-20 01:35:08 PM
I got breathalyzed twice the other evening. They were breathalyzing people randomly at 2 different checkpoints.

"Roll down the window. Blow into this. Thank you sir. Run along."
 
2012-12-20 01:35:37 PM

You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.


First off you cannot smell "alcohol" on someone's breath. and any smell you do feel you get is NOT a way to tell someone's BAC. MANY things can mimic the smell of an alcoholic beverage, and this mentality is the reason so many people have died in the drunk tank from DKA. Any defense attorney who hears you say this will eat you alive on cross-examination, and make you look like a complete idiot. 
 
Second, you have a right to refuse a breathalyzer by law. But you also have the right to surrender your license by doing so. (I'm ok with this.)
 
I'm NOT OK with people being forced to undergo an invasive medical procedure against their will with no legitimate probable cause other than a cop saying something completely un-based in reality.
 
2012-12-20 01:35:51 PM

Treygreen13: Already, local media in my area are discussing mandatory blow-start vehicles for everyone - not just people with past DUIs or DWIs.


Quite frankly, I have far less of a problem with that than I do the star chamber proceedings that surround DUI arrests now.

In some states you can request the blood test. My non-lawyerly advice would be if you have been drinking, and think you're not over the limit, ask for the blood test if you can. At least if you're convicted you'll know it was probably accurate.
 
2012-12-20 01:36:13 PM

trippdogg: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.


Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.
 
2012-12-20 01:36:46 PM
heh, isn't this actual theft of property?

I know it might be a giant stretch, but isn't that literally taking your resource without your consent? Not to mention the warrant rubber stamping issues.
 
2012-12-20 01:40:24 PM
These are the same police that the left wants us to voluntarily give our firearms to?
 
2012-12-20 01:40:38 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: trippdogg: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.

Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.


True.  But in the case of DUIs, would you rather take a chemical test (which is what breathalyzers and blood draws are) with the accuracy of chemistry and science (which can be validated by an independent source of your choosing in the case of blood draws) OR some cop's judgment/word that you were drunk?
 
2012-12-20 01:40:44 PM
Loved this part:

a former county contractor and breath test analyst, George McDougall, who retired last year after being diagnosed with "mild cognitive impairment."
 
2012-12-20 01:41:38 PM

BolivarShagnasty: I got breathalyzed twice the other evening. They were breathalyzing people randomly at 2 different checkpoints.

"Roll down the window. Blow into this. Thank you sir. Run along."


Or as I call it: Glory Hole Justice.
 
2012-12-20 01:41:39 PM

You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.


So, you'd be fine if built-in breathalizers were mandatory in every vehicle in order to start the car? Wow, just wow
 
2012-12-20 01:43:31 PM
"The juries were quite frankly demanding more evidence. The officer's word just wasn't good enough anymore."

Gee, i wonder farking why????
 
2012-12-20 01:43:35 PM

computerguyUT: Well, if you're not doing anything wrong why should you have a problem with this......citizen.... Right????


Oh, I get it! When you use the word "citizen", you're implying that people's rights are being violated.

/no right to drive while intoxicated
 
2012-12-20 01:45:00 PM

LeroyBourne: fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??
/or will you have to sue?

Maybe if they accidentally gave you the AIDS, but good luck proving that too.


Step 1: Accept invitation to a party
Step 2: Go and get tested for every STD before the party
Step 3: Get negative results, go and get slaughtered
Step 4: Refuse Breathalyzer, take forced bloodwork, get AIDS due to horribly derelict testing procedures
Step 5: Profit???
 
2012-12-20 01:45:25 PM

ScotterOtter: You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.

So, you'd be fine if built-in breathalizers were mandatory in every vehicle in order to start the car? Wow, just wow


There can be a lot of problems with that.  What happens when the breathalyzer breaks down? Is calibrated wrongly? Gives a false positive? Is there a way to bypass it in the case of an emergency?
 
I mean, it might be something I could see a parent installing in their kid's car, but in every car? It's a bit much.
 
2012-12-20 01:46:33 PM

BronyMedic: You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.

First off you cannot smell "alcohol" on someone's breath. and any smell you do feel you get is NOT a way to tell someone's BAC. MANY things can mimic the smell of an alcoholic beverage, and this mentality is the reason so many people have died in the drunk tank from DKA. Any defense attorney who hears you say this will eat you alive on cross-examination, and make you look like a complete idiot. 
 
Second, you have a right to refuse a breathalyzer by law. But you also have the right to surrender your license by doing so. (I'm ok with this.)
 
I'm NOT OK with people being forced to undergo an invasive medical procedure against their will with no legitimate probable cause other than a cop saying something completely un-based in reality.


I'm rather certain upon refusal, before a draw, you could just say "Guilty."

If you have a person to drunk or so unwilling to take a breathalyzer or admit guilt then this is about the only way to PROVE your guilt.

If a cop walked up and said "Arm, now." I would have a huge honkin ass problem with that.

This sounds to me like a last ditch effort to prove guilt if all other means fail.
 
2012-12-20 01:46:53 PM
Sounds good, because the judge sitting around drinking coffee with the prosecutor and cops at the checkpoint is sure to be unbiased, and a crime lab chemist would never falsify results
 
2012-12-20 01:47:20 PM
This is simply an extension of fishing net law enforcement. Throw a net, pull in all the fish, throw em out till you find the one you want.
 
2012-12-20 01:47:22 PM
Hate drunk drivers, but truly despise asshole cops who will trump up charges just because they don't like you and want you to have a shiatty day.

"Oh, ya don't like that I pulled ya over for going 27 in a 25 mph zone! Ya know, *I* think ya smell like alcohol!"

/fark off
 
2012-12-20 01:47:29 PM

Raoul Eaton: they'll have police testimony establishing probable cause even if the test comes back negative.


I'd like to see that.

"He was drunk"
"No, he wasn't. the blood test proves it."
"Oh... um.... well, we thought he was drunk, so..."
"Officer, do you routinely mistake sober people for drunk people? What, exactly, is your medical training in this regard?"
"Well, ..."
"...Or were you lying when you claimed my perfectly sober client was drunk. Which would be illegal. Do we need to pull ALL your cases for the last 10 years?"
etc.
 
2012-12-20 01:47:31 PM

farkingatwork: I know it might be a giant stretch, but isn't that literally taking your resource without your consent?


I know, this was the same issue I had with the police when they stole all those bodies out of my crawlspace. They had no right!
 
2012-12-20 01:47:34 PM

buzzcut73: Sounds good, because the judge sitting around drinking coffee with the prosecutor and cops at the checkpoint is sure to be unbiased, and a crime lab chemist would never falsify results


Random DNA files on ALL citizens NOW.

EVERYONE!
 
2012-12-20 01:47:37 PM

Treygreen13: Now that states are starting to realize the cash-cow that is DUI offenses, this will only get worse. With support from a nation full of reactionary busybodies, we're on our way to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation when it comes to DUIs. Already, local media in my area are discussing mandatory blow-start vehicles for everyone - not just people with past DUIs or DWIs.


While that could certainly make a shiat-ton of money for someone selling interlocks (paging Gov. Rick Scott to the courtesy phone), that would appear to take a lot of money out of local courts, cities, and police departments. I can see all of those working quietly to make sure that doesn't happen.
 
2012-12-20 01:48:08 PM

davidphogan: fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??

/or will you have to sue?

Nope, and good luck with the lawsuit. You'll probably want to move after filling it.


I'll have the money to do that, so....
 
2012-12-20 01:48:42 PM

NightOwl2255: This is simply an extension of fishing net law enforcement. Throw a net, pull in all the fish, throw em out till you find the one you want.


They get to keep you DNA. Guilty or otherwise.
 
2012-12-20 01:49:25 PM

ScotterOtter: You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.

So, you'd be fine if built-in breathalizers were mandatory in every vehicle in order to start the car? Wow, just wow


So, you'd be fine with every driver being too drunk to stand all day, every day?

/ Makes just as much sense as your dumbass question.
 
2012-12-20 01:50:40 PM

mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.


So, Guilty until proven Innocent?
 
2012-12-20 01:51:04 PM

Anastacya: LeroyBourne: fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??
/or will you have to sue?

Maybe if they accidentally gave you the AIDS, but good luck proving that too.

Step 1: Accept invitation to a party
Step 2: Go and get tested for every STD before the party
Step 3: Get negative results, go and get slaughtered
Step 4: Refuse Breathalyzer, take forced bloodwork, get AIDS due to horribly derelict testing procedures
Step 5: Profit???


My brother-in-law got blood poisoning from a bad blood draw.  It ended up being the reason he wasn't convicted of a DUI.  Basically, he had a poison oak rash from earlier that day.  He told the phlebotomist that she shouldn't draw from that arm, and to please use the other arm because he had poison oak.  She ignored him and drew from that arm anyways.  Medical tests later showed blood poisoning, and the court agreed that it was the phlebotomist's fault.  Funny part is that the phlebotomist tried to claim that she didn't believe that "poison oak" was a real thing, but then later said that she washed her hands immediately afterwards in order to not catch it.
 
/He got convicted for his next DUI about 4 months later.
//He's a dumbass
 
2012-12-20 01:51:54 PM

farkingatwork: heh, isn't this actual theft of property?

I know it might be a giant stretch, but isn't that literally taking your resource without your consent? Not to mention the warrant rubber stamping issues.


The State owns you. Drugs laws and bans on assisted suicide should tell you that.
 
2012-12-20 01:52:51 PM

fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?


What would you prefer?

"Officer, I won't agree to any test of my BAC"
"Well then, I guess you're free to go"
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report