Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, rubber stamps, constraint satisfaction, Bexar County, Hereford, crime lab, search warrants, warrants, Texas District  
•       •       •

10518 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 1:17 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-12-20 02:24:26 PM  
2 votes:

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

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?

More accurately, not submitting to a blood-alcohol test results in automatic suspension of a driver's license. Because driving on public roads is a licensed privilege and not a right, states retain the power to establish a requirement of submission to such a test as a condition for continued licensing. As suspension of a driver's license is not itself a criminal conviction, no "guilt" is technically assessed.


Which is all bullshiat.

It's bullshiat to say driving is a privilege. Many, if not most people need to drive. To work (to earn money). To the store (to spend money on ie. food). Is it a 'privilege' to not starve??

It's bullshiat to toss in extra requirements on driving. What's next- saying "You are required to submit to warrant-less cavity searches, or lose your license"?? "You are required to blow any cop who pulls you over, or lose your license"?

It's bullshiat to make breaking a law a civil or 'administrative' issue, instead of a criminal one. If there is a law, and I break it, I should get a criminal trial, not an 'administrative' hearing or whatever. This 'administrative' crap is just a way for the government to bypass having to have proper Cause and evidence for a criminal case, and to not have to follow the procedures for it.
2012-12-20 01:43:31 PM  
2 votes:
"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 01:30:38 PM  
2 votes:
Wait?! Warrants are being sworn out on oaths of probable cause! Unconstitutional ™! Why is this not a breaking news tagged story?????
2012-12-20 04:52:51 PM  
1 vote:

Raoul Eaton: fredklein: 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.

Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."


Here's what I don't get -- why isn't the erratic driving enough? Who cares whether a person had alcohol in their system or not unless we want to bust people who are technically over the limit but not inebriated? From a practical standpoint, why do we care why someone was weaving around in the road? Whether they are drunk or just a crappy driver, their weaving is no more or less dangerous.
2012-12-20 03:36:31 PM  
1 vote:

fredklein: it wouldn't be 'cop vs civilian', it would be 'cop claiming civilian was drunk vs lab report showing civilian was not drunk'.


You mean civilian who works for the police department claiming civilian who doesn't work for the police department was drunk vs lab report showing civilian who doesn't work for the police department was not drunk.
2012-12-20 03:30:34 PM  
1 vote:

fredklein: Solaris: Ride a bike, take a cab, walk. These are possible everywhere.

Sure. You tell me how long a 20-mile commute takes you to walk. Or how much it costs to cab it.

Or, are you now forcing people to move closer to their place of work?


Someone's "inconvenience" of a longer commute does not afford them any rights to what form of transportation they get to use.
2012-12-20 03:26:07 PM  
1 vote:

mgshamster: A bit of that has to do with something called the CSI Effect.  Basically, ever since the tv show CSI came on the air, everyone seems to want the most advanced scientific tests to prove a person is guilty.  It's really gumming up the works in the forensic DNA world - friends of mine that work in that field complain about cops sending in samples that might contain DNA, and they end up getting hundreds of samples per case.

So even with the dash cam and other proof of drunkenness, chemical tests still "must" to be done.

Another aspect is that the breathalyzer was around before dash cams, and it was a lot easier to prove someone was drunk with a breath, blood, or urine test (although urine tests aren't done anymore in most jurisdictions) than it was with video evidence.  It may even be written into the law, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.


Anyone who has had the pleasure of a run in with law enforcement knows not to trust them. The more draconian the laws, the more interactions, the more regular joes start learning that lesson, the less credulous your typical jury is.

In other words, law inforcement is creating their own problem and having to up the ante to keep the money flowing.

And don't kid yourself, it is all about the money.
2012-12-20 02:00:39 PM  
1 vote:

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

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?


More accurately, not submitting to a blood-alcohol test results in automatic suspension of a driver's license. Because driving on public roads is a licensed privilege and not a right, states retain the power to establish a requirement of submission to such a test as a condition for continued licensing. As suspension of a driver's license is not itself a criminal conviction, no "guilt" is technically assessed.
2012-12-20 01:58:17 PM  
1 vote:
I see this ending up in front of the Supreme Court eventually...just need to find the right case and the right lawyer to run it up.
2012-12-20 01:47:20 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:40:24 PM  
1 vote:
These are the same police that the left wants us to voluntarily give our firearms to?
2012-12-20 01:36:13 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:35:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:32:31 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:32:06 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:27:59 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:27:58 PM  
1 vote:
Maybe you should just blow into the breathalizer? or not drive drunk?
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report