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.

(TwinCities.com)   So says the MN Supreme Court: A driver's decision to agree to take a sobriety test is not coerced simply because Minnesota has attached the penalty of making it a crime to refuse the test   (twincities.com) divider line 96
    More: Asinine, Minnesota Supreme Court, Minnesota, DWI, bus drivers, concurring opinions, Prior Lake, refuses  
•       •       •

3151 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Oct 2013 at 8:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-24 08:43:03 AM  
3 DUIs. Fark. Him.
 
2013-10-24 08:44:24 AM  
That's been the law for ages in Ontario. I believe that the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer is harsher than the penalty for driving while impaired.
 
2013-10-24 08:45:18 AM  
It's the same in NY, but everyone just refuses to blow in to the machine because that's easier to deal with than a DUI.
 
2013-10-24 08:45:27 AM  
Driving is a privilege, not a right, and it's a privilege that idiots abuse at their own peril.

He'll get over it.
 
2013-10-24 08:46:34 AM  
I like how you get punished in this country for what your actions could result in instead of what actually happens.
 
2013-10-24 08:46:52 AM  
This is not news. Years ago parts of Illinois... If you did not give consent to a sobriety test, the police had the right to strap you down and forcefully take a blood sample.

There was a judge on call to sign the "search" warrant.
 
2013-10-24 08:47:46 AM  
I have no comment on the law in question. My only comment is that you get caught for your 3rd DUI, you should be doing some hard jail time. Years, not months. 2 times is plenty of time to get your shiat straight.
 
GBB
2013-10-24 08:48:14 AM  
Works the same way in FL.  You either take the test, or lose your license for a year.
 
2013-10-24 08:49:41 AM  

Glenford: That's been the law for ages in Ontario. I believe that the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer is harsher than the penalty for driving while impaired.


And for the longest time slavery was legal.  Segregation was constitutional.  Just because something has been a way for a long time doesn't make it right.
 
2013-10-24 08:50:48 AM  
How is making it a crime to refuse to produce evidence against oneself not a 5th Amendment violation?
 
2013-10-24 08:53:13 AM  
You don't have a right to drive a motor vehicle.  It is a privilege granted to you in return for accepting certain conditions.
 
2013-10-24 08:53:23 AM  
I'm not defending impaired drivers, but couldn't you refuse to take a breathalyzer test on the grounds of "self-incrimination"?
 
2013-10-24 08:55:15 AM  
That's been the law in the UK for ages and ages.  You're better off blowing into the machine and taking your chances.  Plus the roadside reading doesn't count in court - they have to take you back to the station and make you blow on the machine there for evidence, twice, and even then they take the lower reading of the two, so there's a chance you can be over the limit at roadside but under it by the time your dumb arse is at the station.

Zero sympathy for the dipstick in TFA.
 
2013-10-24 08:56:05 AM  

pag1107: You don't have a right to drive a motor vehicle.  It is a privilege granted to you in return for accepting certain conditions.


Came here to say this.  It's a basic agreement.  IF you want a license, THEN you agree to these terms.  Also, don't drive drunk you *a*hole.  He's been *caught* three times.

If you can't abide, then ride your bike.
 
2013-10-24 08:57:44 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: How is making it a crime to refuse to produce evidence against oneself not a 5th Amendment violation?


Because money has more value than rights.
 
2013-10-24 09:01:02 AM  
1: Driving is not a right, it's a privilege
2. The law is stupid
 
2013-10-24 09:01:20 AM  

ElPresidente: Driving is a privilege, not a right, and it's a privilege that idiots abuse at their own peril.

He'll get over it.


It's not a privilege; it's a regulated activity. Part of the regulation is that you can't drive if you refuse a DUI test.

Most states just pull your license for a period if you refuse a sobriety test, which is justifiable under the state's regulation of driving. Making you subject to criminal charges seems pretty f'd up, and a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.
 
2013-10-24 09:01:35 AM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: This is not news. Years ago parts of Illinois... If you did not give consent to a sobriety test, the police had the right to strap you down and forcefully take a blood sample.

There was a judge on call to sign the "search" warrant.


My BIL worked a DUI checkpoint once where they didn't even waste time calling a judge.  Since the judge didn't want to get woken up in the middle of the night for a rubber stamp, he just pre-signed a stack of warrants.  All the cops had to do was add a name and date/time.

I wonder how long it'll take before some legislature slaps the fact that you live in a state is a "privilege", and therefore they have implied consent to search your home whenever they want.
 
2013-10-24 09:01:45 AM  

pag1107: You don't have a right to drive a motor vehicle.  It is a privilege granted to you in return for accepting certain conditions.


THIS.  One of those certain conditions is you must be fit enough to operate a motor vehicle, something you agree to prove if a law enforcement official suspects you're not and asks you to do so.

/5th Amendment my arse - keep drunks and drug-addled wankers off the road
 
2013-10-24 09:02:02 AM  
pag1107
You don't have a right to drive a motor vehicle.  It is a privilege granted to you in return for accepting certain conditions.


I don't remember agreeing to any conditions.

/Not disagreeing though.
 
2013-10-24 09:04:28 AM  

pag1107: You don't have a right to drive a motor vehicle.  It is a privilege granted to you in return for accepting certain conditions.


You know, I find it funny that gun owners go on about gun registration and government taking their guns, when they evidently have no problem with car registration and presumably the government taking their cars. It's hard to stage a revolution without transport.
 
2013-10-24 09:04:41 AM  

Glenford: That's been the law for ages in Ontario. I believe that the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer is harsher than the penalty for driving while impaired.


That's the law in Canada as a whole (our criminal law is federal). I have no problems with it whatsoever. Fark drunk drivers, especially those who hide behind proclamations of personal freedom in order to justify their selfish and dangerous behaviour. Kudos on the court for making the right call.
 
2013-10-24 09:06:05 AM  

ElPresidente: pag1107: You don't have a right to drive a motor vehicle.  It is a privilege granted to you in return for accepting certain conditions.

THIS.  One of those certain conditions is you must be fit enough to operate a motor vehicle, something you agree to prove if a law enforcement official suspects you're not and asks you to do so.

/5th Amendment my arse - keep drunks and drug-addled wankers off the road


Yes and you lose that privilege if you refuse. I don't know what it is in Illinois, but your license was yanked 6 months to 2 years in Indiana. There was no criminal penalty attached to it, and I have no idea how it is legal for that to happen.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-10-24 09:07:19 AM  
Seems like the concurring opinion has a better analysis (based on the article). "Blow or go to jail" is not voluntary, no matter whether you call driving a fundamental right or a super duper special privilege. But the legal question is not really whether taking the test is voluntary. The legal question is whether some guys who dress funny think police ought to get a warrant under the circumstances. Involuntary, warrantless searches can still be legal. The Supreme Court did not object to California's policy of requiring consent to search in return for parole. That is the same "consent or go to jail" choice offered after a DUI arrest.

The right against self incrimination was originally intended to prohibit forcing people to provide evidence against themselves. That comes from the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Bill of Rights was inspired by the Massachusetts constitution, but as interpreted by federal courts has a narrower protection that applies only to testimony.
 
2013-10-24 09:08:33 AM  
I'd be cool with this if breathalyzers were frequently calibrated and tested.
 
2013-10-24 09:08:54 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: pag1107: You don't have a right to drive a motor vehicle.  It is a privilege granted to you in return for accepting certain conditions.

You know, I find it funny that gun owners go on about gun registration and government taking their guns, when they evidently have no problem with car registration and presumably the government taking their cars. It's hard to stage a revolution without transport.


I know quite a few gun owners who have made exactly that point.  If I could get away without having to register my car, I would.  And if we didn't have registration laws on the books, and they tried to implement them, I'd fight against them just as hard as I fight against gun registration.
 
2013-10-24 09:10:28 AM  
In Pa, refusal of the blood test is automatic 1 year suspension and they will still charge you with DUI. Granted they won't have the b.a.c. as evidence but the cop will testify that you had a strong odor of alcohol, blurred speech, failed nystagmus (sp?), unsteady gait, etc etc etc. Unless you have a jury with at least one drunk on it, you will get that conviction too.
 
2013-10-24 09:11:35 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: How is making it a crime to refuse to produce evidence against oneself not a 5th Amendment violation?


Same reason giving a hair sample or DNA swab is not a violation.
 
2013-10-24 09:13:40 AM  
Technically "driving" is not a privilege in Minnesota.

Driving on public roads IS a privilege however.  If you choose to drive on public roads you need a license, and you give your consent to certain things by applying for the license, and/or renewing it.

I'm okay with all of that.

Making refusal a crime though - that does seem to be a clear violation of rights.  Just do what everyone else does and get a warrant.
 
2013-10-24 09:18:58 AM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: Uranus Is Huge!: How is making it a crime to refuse to produce evidence against oneself not a 5th Amendment violation?

Same reason giving a hair sample or DNA swab is not a violation.


That doesn't answer the question.  You are being forced to provide the very evidence that will convict you.  How is this not a 5th Amendment violation.

" nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself  "
 
2013-10-24 09:19:23 AM  

ZAZ: Seems like the concurring opinion has a better analysis (based on the article). "Blow or go to jail" is not voluntary, no matter whether you call driving a fundamental right or a super duper special privilege. But the legal question is not really whether taking the test is voluntary. The legal question is whether some guys who dress funny think police ought to get a warrant under the circumstances. Involuntary, warrantless searches can still be legal. The Supreme Court did not object to California's policy of requiring consent to search in return for parole. That is the same "consent or go to jail" choice offered after a DUI arrest.

The right against self incrimination was originally intended to prohibit forcing people to provide evidence against themselves. That comes from the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Bill of Rights was inspired by the Massachusetts constitution, but as interpreted by federal courts has a narrower protection that applies only to testimony.


This is completely different than consenting to searches as terms of parole. In that case, you're already under arrest and under charge of the state. Even though you're not behind bars, you're still "in jail" and subject to the terms and restrictions set on you.

Criminal charges attached to refusing implied consent is sending someone that is not under the watch of the state to jail in the first place - which is stupid.
Pull his license, yes. But additional criminal charges just for refusing the post arrest test? How is that not coercion?
 
2013-10-24 09:20:31 AM  

Potter82: Glenford: That's been the law for ages in Ontario. I believe that the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer is harsher than the penalty for driving while impaired.

That's the law in Canada as a whole (our criminal law is federal). I have no problems with it whatsoever. Fark drunk drivers, especially those who hide behind proclamations of personal freedom in order to justify their selfish and dangerous behaviour. Kudos on the court for making the right call.


Fun fact: in some states you do not have to be at the legal limit to be charged with DUI. It is entirely up to the officer if you are impared.

I can't imagine there would be an incentive for cops to lie about it... nope... none what so ever.
 
2013-10-24 09:21:51 AM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: This is not news. Years ago parts of Illinois... If you did not give consent to a sobriety test, the police had the right to strap you down and forcefully take a blood sample.

There was a judge on call to sign the "search" warrant.


As genetic mapping and the like becomes less expensive, and with copyrights and patents so easy to attain, I can see someone copyrighting their blood, DNA, etc. and when encountering a situation like this, suing the police because the police did not have express consent to use/research/conduct a study on, etc. someones blood.

Not saying it would hold up in court, but I can see someone trying this...
 
2013-10-24 09:27:43 AM  
The guy was driving drunk, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for him, but how does a law making it a crime to refuse sobriety testing interact with the 5th amendment?  This sounds like a software EULA (by turning ignition key you are agreeing to the terms and conditions.....) Frankly, the guy probably would have been better off not consenting and challenging the charges for refusing to consent as a violation of his 5th amendment rights.

/IANAL
//may not be a winner, but that seems like the way to go.
 
2013-10-24 09:32:13 AM  

ltdanman44: The Dog Ate My Homework: Uranus Is Huge!: How is making it a crime to refuse to produce evidence against oneself not a 5th Amendment violation?

Same reason giving a hair sample or DNA swab is not a violation.

That doesn't answer the question.  You are being forced to provide the very evidence that will convict you.  How is this not a 5th Amendment violation.

" nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself  "


Well, you see, it says "BE a witness". Providing evidence is not "BEING" a witness.

Or so the logic goes.
 
2013-10-24 09:32:54 AM  

Nick Nostril: I have no comment on the law in question. My only comment is that you get caught for your 3rd DUI, you should be doing some hard jail time. Years, not months. 2 times is plenty of time to get your shiat straight.


An old work "buddy" of mine got popped for his 3rd DUI and 3rd Refusal to Blow in less than 10 years this last April.  He served 6 months in county lockup before his trial.  He was facing 5 years for the 3rd DUI, and another 3 for the refusal to blow.  The plead out, plead guilty, and is on probation for the next 4.5 years, if he gets busted again, he goes to jail for something like 10+ years.

Part of his plea is that he has to submit to random drug and alcohol tests from the county.  He is also not allowed to use drugs or alcohol, and if he is caught, he will have to serve the remaining 4.5 years in jail.

He gets released last November around 10am.  I am at work.  I get a call from him around 11:15am.  "Endive!!!  How's it going man?  Yeah, yeah..I am good...Hey, you wanna join me at O'Faolain's for some drinks and food?  We are partying it up here bro!!!"

I let him know that in no uncertain terms would I be supporting his addiction, that he was just given one last "free pass" at a free life, and he is playing with fire.  If he wanted to meet for coffee at Starbucks and chat, I would be happy to do so, but I would not consume alcohol with him.

He called me a self-righteous asshole, told me to fark off, then like a 14 year old girl, posted a rant about "the haters" on his Facebook page.

His ex-wife called me a week later thanking me for standing up to him and telling him what he NEEDED to hear.

So it is only a matter of time before he ends up back in jail or something worse.
 
2013-10-24 09:32:57 AM  
I think it is important in the discussion to make a distinction between the ability to refuse without consequence a breath/blood test before being arrested versus after being arrested.  It differs by state, but a "preliminary" test--one taken before actually being arrested--can typically be refused without consequence.  But, the cops can arrest you for suspicion for drunk driving based only on their observations.    Once arrested, the governments ability to create consequences for refusing a breath or blood test as part of a DUI booking (along with many other routine things like fingerprints, photographs, search, DNA swabbing) is altogether different.
 
2013-10-24 09:36:12 AM  
Man, everybody in this thread seems to be all about the police state today. For the "driving is a privilege" crowd, please note that the guy wasn't going to lose his ability to drive for refusing to provide a BAC sample - he was going to go to jail for refusing to provide a sample. They're taking away his freedom because a cop suspected him of committing an offense, demanded that the guy provide evidence (WITHOUT a judge's oversight) and then arrested him when the evidence wasn't provided.

Forget the DUI for a minute. What if a cop came up to your front door, said "I think you're growing marijuana in the basement. Let me in to look or I'll take you to jail right now. No, I don't have a warrant." Now, you're not growing pot, but do you let him come snoop around your whole house based on just his say so? If you tell him no, you get arrested and go to jail. He comes in, doesn't find any pot, but you're still in jail because you refused to consent. Maybe the cop had his eye on your sweet leather jacket. "Hey, I think this has traces of cocaine in the pockets. Consent to giving it to me or I'm going to throw you in jail." It's obviously a problem that a cop can make evidentiary demands on a person without judicial oversight and refusal is now a crime.

This is obviously a fourth and fifth amendment violation. Forget the fact that driving is a privilege that can be revoked by the state for bad behavior. Your freedom is NOT a privilege that can be revoked by the state for refusing to provide evidence without due process. I have no problem with the state pulling a driver's license for refusing to take a breathalyzer. I have a major problem with criminalizing refusal to consent to a warrantless evidence seizure.
 
2013-10-24 09:39:37 AM  
Not so CSB: I got out of a DUI when I was young and dumb by refusing to take a blood test. I should have lost my license for a year, as that is the penalty for refusing. There is an "out" however: if the prosectuor drops the DUI charge entirely. The failboat of a prosecutor that had my case lost the part of the police report that contained my roadside sobriety tests, so he ended up dropping the DUI and lowering hit and run to leaving the scene of an accident. The county didn't get their shiat together and submit an amount for restitution (I took out a couple of road signs and a cable guard rail), so I got off of the hook there as well. The guy who was riding with me got charged with open container, and he ended up paying more in fines and court costs than I did.

I had originally planned to go to court and plead guilty and take my lumps. I knew that I was in the wrong. One of my college professors convinced me to get a lawyer and gave me the name of a good one. It ended up saving me a LOT of money and trouble. The bad news is that the criminal justice system pretty much failed that day because of an overloaded/under-prepared public prosecutor. The good news is that even though I didn't end up getting the punishment I should have, I did learn my lesson, got my shiat together, graduated with my degree and became a productive member of society. I haven't done anything that unbelievably stupid since, and I don't plan to ever do it again. I got lucky. I could have killed someone that night. Not everyone gets a second chance the way I did, but it sounds like this guy has had plenty of chances and still hasn't figured it out, so I don't feel too sorry for him.
 
2013-10-24 09:40:26 AM  

Endive Wombat: Nick Nostril: I have no comment on the law in question. My only comment is that you get caught for your 3rd DUI, you should be doing some hard jail time. Years, not months. 2 times is plenty of time to get your shiat straight.

An old work "buddy" of mine got popped for his 3rd DUI and 3rd Refusal to Blow in less than 10 years this last April.  He served 6 months in county lockup before his trial.  He was facing 5 years for the 3rd DUI, and another 3 for the refusal to blow.  The plead out, plead guilty, and is on probation for the next 4.5 years, if he gets busted again, he goes to jail for something like 10+ years.

Part of his plea is that he has to submit to random drug and alcohol tests from the county.  He is also not allowed to use drugs or alcohol, and if he is caught, he will have to serve the remaining 4.5 years in jail.

He gets released last November around 10am.  I am at work.  I get a call from him around 11:15am.  "Endive!!!  How's it going man?  Yeah, yeah..I am good...Hey, you wanna join me at O'Faolain's for some drinks and food?  We are partying it up here bro!!!"

I let him know that in no uncertain terms would I be supporting his addiction, that he was just given one last "free pass" at a free life, and he is playing with fire.  If he wanted to meet for coffee at Starbucks and chat, I would be happy to do so, but I would not consume alcohol with him.

He called me a self-righteous asshole, told me to fark off, then like a 14 year old girl, posted a rant about "the haters" on his Facebook page.

His ex-wife called me a week later thanking me for standing up to him and telling him what he NEEDED to hear.

So it is only a matter of time before he ends up back in jail or something worse.


memestorage.com
 
2013-10-24 09:40:51 AM  
People are getting confused between field sobriety tests (breathalyzer, walking straight line, etc) and BAC tests which are performed after arrest.  You CAN refuse field sobriety tests, you can't refuse the test after you are arrested.  Cops are allowed to lie to you, so don't believe them when they say you are required to do their roadside tests.  But, check your local laws, of course.
 
2013-10-24 09:42:26 AM  
In the UK, it's a separate crime to refuse to provide a specimen of breath if you're suspected of DUI.  So if you don't blow into the machine, you're prosecuted for that instead of DUI, which coincidentally carries the exact same penalty as a DUI, i.e. wave bye-bye to your license for probably at least 18 months.  Plus insurance companies, while not impressed with a DUI on your record, are even less impressed with a refusal to provide, so good luck paying for that policy when you get your license back.
 
2013-10-24 09:46:29 AM  
Tyrone Slothrop: pag1107: You don't have a right to drive a motor vehicle.  It is a privilege granted to you in return for accepting certain conditions.

You know, I find it funny that gun owners go on about gun registration and government taking their guns, when they evidently have no problem with car registration and presumably the government taking their cars. It's hard to stage a revolution without transport.


One is not like the other, and you know that, or you are trolling.  One is a constitutionally protected right that has been held up by many, many courts including the US Supreme Court...While gun ownership in the US is indeed high, the likelihood of being injured/killed by a gun is low, especially if you're not a minority male in an inner city gang.  Yeah, a significant amount of gun related injuries and deaths are pretty much contained to gang on gang violence.

When it comes to driving, it is a privilege.  The likelihood of injuring/killing your fellow man increases a lot when drugs or alcohol are in the mix while operating a 3000 lb machine moving at 60MPH.  When an activity you choose to participate in goes from something private to very public, there is some give and take, you know...compromise.  In this instance, using the roads provided by the government comes with some conditions - your vehicle must be safe to drive, you must agree to speed limits, you must be able to see, and you agree to a sobriety check to make sure you are fit to drive.  When your activity may affect my livelihood, you lose some rights...and most citizens and lawmakers will agree with you.
 
2013-10-24 09:47:15 AM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: Uranus Is Huge!: How is making it a crime to refuse to produce evidence against oneself not a 5th Amendment violation?

Same reason giving a hair sample or DNA swab is not a violation.


So they can't search my car but they can cut my hair and swab my saliva or take my blood?  Got it.  I love this country !
 
2013-10-24 09:48:12 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: pag1107: You don't have a right to drive a motor vehicle.  It is a privilege granted to you in return for accepting certain conditions.

You know, I find it funny that gun owners go on about gun registration and government taking their guns, when they evidently have no problem with car registration and presumably the government taking their cars. It's hard to stage a revolution without transport.


Which amendment bestows the right to operate a motor vehicle?

Didn't think so.

Will give you 3/10 for trying. Better luck next time!
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-10-24 09:49:25 AM  
Part of his plea is that he has to submit to random drug and alcohol tests from the county. He is also not allowed to use drugs or alcohol, and if he is caught, he will have to serve the remaining 4.5 years in jail.

Most DUI sentences are punitive and the system doesn't really care if you get cured. They'll make you go to AA or whoever, but that's just AA or whoever getting a cut of the DUI money. Massachusetts has mandatory 14 days inpatient treatment for a second offense, which again is more about moving money and feeling good than keeping people sober.

A few counties do intensive probation where you have to report to the station sober every day. That seems to work.

More often, they have the right to test you but rarely follow through on the threat.
 
2013-10-24 10:01:22 AM  

phyrkrakr: Man, everybody in this thread seems to be all about the police state today. For the "driving is a privilege" crowd, please note that the guy wasn't going to lose his ability to drive for refusing to provide a BAC sample - he was going to go to jail for refusing to provide a sample. They're taking away his freedom because a cop suspected him of committing an offense, demanded that the guy provide evidence (WITHOUT a judge's oversight) and then arrested him when the evidence wasn't provided.

Forget the DUI for a minute. What if a cop came up to your front door, said "I think you're growing marijuana in the basement. Let me in to look or I'll take you to jail right now. No, I don't have a warrant." Now, you're not growing pot, but do you let him come snoop around your whole house based on just his say so? If you tell him no, you get arrested and go to jail. He comes in, doesn't find any pot, but you're still in jail because you refused to consent. Maybe the cop had his eye on your sweet leather jacket. "Hey, I think this has traces of cocaine in the pockets. Consent to giving it to me or I'm going to throw you in jail." It's obviously a problem that a cop can make evidentiary demands on a person without judicial oversight and refusal is now a crime.

This is obviously a fourth and fifth amendment violation. Forget the fact that driving is a privilege that can be revoked by the state for bad behavior. Your freedom is NOT a privilege that can be revoked by the state for refusing to provide evidence without due process. I have no problem with the state pulling a driver's license for refusing to take a breathalyzer. I have a major problem with criminalizing refusal to consent to a warrantless evidence seizure.


I would just like to point out that growing marijuana in your basement is not a danger to possibly hundreds of other people...whereas driving drunk is.  You do see the distinction right?  And if you do, then you recognize why driving is considered by many states as a privilege.
No one is stopping you from walking, taking a taxi or bus.  You do not have to drive yourself.  There are other options.
 
2013-10-24 10:02:23 AM  

Endive Wombat: Tyrone Slothrop: pag1107: You don't have a right to drive a motor vehicle.  It is a privilege granted to you in return for accepting certain conditions.

You know, I find it funny that gun owners go on about gun registration and government taking their guns, when they evidently have no problem with car registration and presumably the government taking their cars. It's hard to stage a revolution without transport.

One is not like the other, and you know that, or you are trolling.  One is a constitutionally protected right that has been held up by many, many courts including the US Supreme Court...While gun ownership in the US is indeed high, the likelihood of being injured/killed by a gun is low, especially if you're not a minority male in an inner city gang.  Yeah, a significant amount of gun related injuries and deaths are pretty much contained to gang on gang violence.

When it comes to driving, it is a privilege.  The likelihood of injuring/killing your fellow man increases a lot when drugs or alcohol are in the mix while operating a 3000 lb machine moving at 60MPH.  When an activity you choose to participate in goes from something private to very public, there is some give and take, you know...compromise.  In this instance, using the roads provided by the government comes with some conditions - your vehicle must be safe to drive, you must agree to speed limits, you must be able to see, and you agree to a sobriety check to make sure you are fit to drive.  When your activity may affect my livelihood, you lose some rights...and most citizens and lawmakers will agree with you.


Ah, but the fact one is a "right" and one is a "privilege" is entirely arbitrary. The constitution could have very well said "the right to transport shall not be abridged."

/Actually both are privileges, there's no such thing as rights.
 
2013-10-24 10:06:58 AM  

ElPresidente: Driving on public roadways is a privilege, not a right, and it's a privilege that idiots abuse at their own peril.

He'll get over it.


FTFY. You don't need a license to drive around on your own property. Once you get on a public road, you're pretty much agreeing to follow the rules laid down by the government.

The Dog Ate My Homework: Uranus Is Huge!: How is making it a crime to refuse to produce evidence against oneself not a 5th Amendment violation?

Same reason giving a hair sample or DNA swab is not a violation.


That's not an answer, so I'll attempt to give you one. I'm not a lawyer, but this is how I understand it. It's not a 5th amendment violation because nobody is forcing you to give a sample without your consent, implied or otherwise. When you sign up to get a license to drive on public roadways, you are agreeing to abide by the rules of the road or face consequences. One of the things that you are agreeing to is that you will consent to give a blood sample if you are arrested for DUI. You can still renege on that agreement by refusing the blood test and they cannot force you to give one without a warrant (there's your 5th amendment rights in action), but you can be punished for breaking your agreement with the state. It's basically the same way that banks, credit card companies, cell phone providers, etc. get you to sign away your rights when you put your John Hancock on the dotted line. Go ahead and try to sue your cell phone provider. You'll be forced into arbitration (where the company WILL win) because you agreed to that when you signed the contract.

Disclaimer: I could be talking completely out of my ass, so if there any lawyers or constitutional scholars in the room who would like to correct me, please feel free to do so.
 
2013-10-24 10:07:02 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Ah, but the fact one is a "right" and one is a "privilege" is entirely arbitrary. The constitution could have very well said "the right to transport shall not be abridged."

/Actually both are privileges, there's no such thing as rights.


I guess we are arguing over semantics here, but you do see the difference between gun ownership and driving, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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