I can. And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. innocent until proven guilty....gone
right to not self incriminate....gone
illegal search and seizure.....gone
and if you physically resist the blood draw, they just write you up as resisting an officer which carries a similar penalty - and FINE I would imagine. Since they only do this occasionally, could it be less about public safety and more about $$$?
I can. And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. US Constitution - Amendment 4 - Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Wow, get busy for a few days . . .
I haven't read all of the posts, all of the sudden there's 11 pages of them, so someone may have covered this. And I am not a lawyer, but here is my take . . .
Innocent until proven guilty. If the law says refusing is an admission of guilt, then that let's them arrest you for it. You are still entitled to a trial, not immediately sentenced, therefore you are still innocent until proven guilty. And if the law says that refusal is probable cause, then that is all they need for a warrant.
Right to not self-incriminate. Court ordered biological samples have surely been challenged and found to be constitutional by SCOTUS, right? bouef.
Illegal search and seizure. If the judge issues a warrant based on probable cause, there is nothing illegal about it.
As for the probable cause, no driving around at night is not probable cause. But smelling like alcohol is. It's not like they're going to be giving breath tests to every single person they stop at these checkpoints, just the ones they think are drunk. If the officer is trained in detecting someone who has been drinking, and they all are, then they are an expert as far as a court is concerned and their opinion is all they need to establish probable cause.
My brother was NJSP for 8 or 10 years, and I rode along with him once. He stopped a guy for speeding, he smelled like alcohol, the guy passed every field sobriety test except the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Took him back for the breathalyzer, his BAC was something over .2%. Crazy.
Anyway, like I said, I find the whole thing objectionable because I don't believe refusal should be
enough for probable cause. Why refuse if you're sober? For the same reason I object to warrantless wire taps or the government reading my email. "If you have nothing to hide then why do you care?". Right to privacy. I think you have the expectation of privacy when you're on the phone or sending email, so these are clearly protected. But driving is a privilege and all that, so it is less clear to me if you can expect the same protections. If I missed a better argument please point it out to me, I just find these unconvincing
I think google just needs to start selling the self-driving car already so we can stop worrying about it.http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/09/google-car-video/