PDA

View Full Version : Implied Consent



indago
12-12-2015, 10:28 AM
Journalist Adam Liptak wrote for The New York Times 11 December 2015:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether states can make it a crime for motorists suspected of drunken driving to refuse breath, blood or urine tests. Thirteen states have such laws. ...In 2013, in Missouri v. McNeely, the Supreme Court ruled that the police investigating a drunken-driving incident must generally obtain warrants before drawing blood without consent. The state laws get around that ruling by making refusal to consent to testing a separate crime. State officials justify those laws in part on the ground that drivers have given their consent to be tested as a condition of being permitted to drive.

The defendants in the new cases say the laws violate the Fourth Amendmentís ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the Minnesota law, people convicted of refusing to be tested can face a mandatory minimum sentence of three years ó and up to seven years ó even if they are never convicted of drunken driving.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/us/politics/supreme-court-to-review-laws-criminalizing-refusal-of-body-substance-tests.html?ref=todayspaper)

indago
12-13-2015, 06:52 AM
It's good to see a REAL American standing up for the Constitution and Bill of Rights for a change. There are just too many so-called "Americans" who are so toadified, and into their privileges granted to them by the State, that we have arrived at this type of situation by default.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
12-13-2015, 10:39 AM
It's good to see a REAL American standing up for the Constitution and Bill of Rights for a change. There are just too many so-called "Americans" who are so toadified, and into their privileges granted to them by the State, that we have arrived at this type of situation by default.



There are just too many so-called "Americans" who are so toadified,

Perfect! "Toadified", :laugh::laugh::laugh:. Couldnt have said it better myself! :clap: -Tyr

Gunny
12-13-2015, 10:49 AM
It's good to see a REAL American standing up for the Constitution and Bill of Rights for a change. There are just too many so-called "Americans" who are so toadified, and into their privileges granted to them by the State, that we have arrived at this type of situation by default.

Yeah. We need more drunk drivers out there. :rolleyes:

When the good of the whole is threatened by the acts of few, then common sense, not word games with the law should be used. If you're all over the place and you act and smell drunk -- if it walks like a duck ...

People like you crack me up. You wonder why the cops can't protect you but YOU are the ones that make it that way tying their hands behind their backs with your silly-ass semantics.

indago
12-13-2015, 12:58 PM
Yeah. We need more drunk drivers out there. :rolleyes:

When the good of the whole is threatened by the acts of few, then common sense, not word games with the law should be used. If you're all over the place and you act and smell drunk -- if it walks like a duck ...

People like you crack me up. You wonder why the cops can't protect you but YOU are the ones that make it that way tying their hands behind their backs with your silly-ass semantics.

Yes, it's a given that you would shit on the Constitution and Bill of Rights...

Gunny
12-13-2015, 01:12 PM
Yes, it's a given that you would shit on the Constitution and Bill of Rights...

Actually, you got that ass-backwards. I'm a Constitutionalist. I also have common sense when it comes to applying the law. You don't. You're a cop hater no matter what. Your singular viewpoint is as worthless as anyone else's. You're fixated on blaming authority for the acts of criminals.

Well, all I can say is :upyours: DOn't be a f-ing bad guy and no one's going to bother you.

indago
12-13-2015, 05:05 PM
Yeah. We need more drunk drivers out there. :rolleyes:

When the good of the whole is threatened by the acts of few, then common sense, not word games with the law should be used. If you're all over the place and you act and smell drunk -- if it walks like a duck ...

People like you crack me up. You wonder why the cops can't protect you but YOU are the ones that make it that way tying their hands behind their backs with your silly-ass semantics.

"If you're all over the place and you act and smell drunk", then it is a given that you should be taken off the road as a danger to others on the road. There is nothing anywhere in the OP that declares otherwise. Besides your reading comprehension problem, what other infirmities do you harbor?

Elessar
12-13-2015, 07:33 PM
"If you're all over the place and you act and smell drunk", then it is a given that you should be taken off the road as a danger to others on the road. There is nothing anywhere in the OP that declares otherwise. Besides your reading comprehension problem, what other infirmities do you harbor?

I still believe your defiance of L.E. says you have something to hide.

If a law or statute protects the majority, then it should stand pat.

You twist the Constitution to serve your own agenda.

aboutime
12-13-2015, 08:22 PM
Journalist Adam Liptak wrote for The New York Times 11 December 2015:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether states can make it a crime for motorists suspected of drunken driving to refuse breath, blood or urine tests. Thirteen states have such laws. ...In 2013, in Missouri v. McNeely, the Supreme Court ruled that the police investigating a drunken-driving incident must generally obtain warrants before drawing blood without consent. The state laws get around that ruling by making refusal to consent to testing a separate crime. State officials justify those laws in part on the ground that drivers have given their consent to be tested as a condition of being permitted to drive.

The defendants in the new cases say the laws violate the Fourth Amendmentís ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the Minnesota law, people convicted of refusing to be tested can face a mandatory minimum sentence of three years ó and up to seven years ó even if they are never convicted of drunken driving.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/us/politics/supreme-court-to-review-laws-criminalizing-refusal-of-body-substance-tests.html?ref=todayspaper)



Does that 4th amendment apply BEFORE, or AFTER a drunk driver has killed someone while DUI???

gabosaurus
12-13-2015, 08:35 PM
Why do so many embrace the constitution concerning alleged drunk drivers, but want to immediately assume that certain people are "terrorists" because of their names or nationalities?

Any laws that can cut down the number of impaired drivers on the roads are good ones. Our laws are WAY too lenient on drunk drivers.
Anyone causing fatalities while driving impaired should be charged with murder.
It is ridiculous to see drivers with multiple DUI convictions still out on the road. Anyone convicted of a second DUI should lose their license for at least five years. Preferably while in prison.

Elessar
12-13-2015, 09:08 PM
Why do so many embrace the constitution concerning alleged drunk drivers, but want to immediately assume that certain people are "terrorists" because of their names or nationalities?

Any laws that can cut down the number of impaired drivers on the roads are good ones. Our laws are WAY too lenient on drunk drivers.
Anyone causing fatalities while driving impaired should be charged with murder.
It is ridiculous to see drivers with multiple DUI convictions still out on the road. Anyone convicted of a second DUI should lose their license for at least five years. Preferably while in prison.

Well stated, Gabby.

Perianne
12-13-2015, 10:44 PM
Why do so many embrace the constitution concerning alleged drunk drivers, but want to immediately assume that certain people are "terrorists" because of their names or nationalities?

Any laws that can cut down the number of impaired drivers on the roads are good ones. Our laws are WAY too lenient on drunk drivers.
Anyone causing fatalities while driving impaired should be charged with murder.
It is ridiculous to see drivers with multiple DUI convictions still out on the road. Anyone convicted of a second DUI should lose their license for at least five years. Preferably while in prison.

Because if you don't want to be considered a terrorist, don't be a Muslim or have the name Mohammed. duh.

indago
12-13-2015, 11:17 PM
Why do so many embrace the constitution concerning alleged drunk drivers, but want to immediately assume that certain people are "terrorists" because of their names or nationalities?

Any laws that can cut down the number of impaired drivers on the roads are good ones. Our laws are WAY too lenient on drunk drivers.
Anyone causing fatalities while driving impaired should be charged with murder.
It is ridiculous to see drivers with multiple DUI convictions still out on the road. Anyone convicted of a second DUI should lose their license for at least five years. Preferably while in prison.

And when you sent that proposal to your legislators, what did they say?

Gunny
12-13-2015, 11:57 PM
Why do so many embrace the constitution concerning alleged drunk drivers, but want to immediately assume that certain people are "terrorists" because of their names or nationalities?

Any laws that can cut down the number of impaired drivers on the roads are good ones. Our laws are WAY too lenient on drunk drivers.
Anyone causing fatalities while driving impaired should be charged with murder.
It is ridiculous to see drivers with multiple DUI convictions still out on the road. Anyone convicted of a second DUI should lose their license for at least five years. Preferably while in prison.

You know, if someone assumed I was a bald white redneck with a moustache and gotee, Would I be guilty? Let's see, would it be Wranglers and boots, the camo hat, Marine Corp t--shirts or the big f-ing red pickup that gave me away?:rolleyes:

indago
12-14-2015, 06:24 AM
You wonder why the cops can't protect you...

Point out where I ever wondered that, oh seer of things unseen!

indago
12-14-2015, 06:28 AM
When the good of the whole is threatened by the acts of few, then common sense, not word games with the law should be used.

Yes, one who has impaired himself shouldn't even be allowed to start up the engine of a motor vehicle, let alone get it onto a roadway.

darin
12-14-2015, 06:42 AM
Why do so many embrace the constitution concerning alleged drunk drivers, but want to immediately assume that certain people are "terrorists" because of their names or nationalities?

Any laws that can cut down the number of impaired drivers on the roads are good ones. Our laws are WAY too lenient on drunk drivers.
Anyone causing fatalities while driving impaired should be charged with murder.
It is ridiculous to see drivers with multiple DUI convictions still out on the road. Anyone convicted of a second DUI should lose their license for at least five years. Preferably while in prison.


Any laws? Let's outlaw cars.

What's more ridiculous? People supporting fasciism over liberty -even dangerous libery.

Gunny
12-14-2015, 07:15 AM
Point out where I ever wondered that, oh seer of things unseen!

Look at the title of the thread. First word is "implied". Kind of like you attempting to imply all cops are bad for the acts of the few. You want to take away their ability to do anything yet still expect them to do their job. I know THIS story. 21 years in the military will teach it to you REAL well.

indago
12-14-2015, 07:33 AM
In 1931, Michigan enacted the Felonious Driving Act within the Penal Code of Michigan:

"Every person who drives any vehicle upon a highway carelessly and heedlessly in wilful and wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property and thereby injuring so as to cripple any person, but not causing death, shall be guilty of the offense of felonious driving and upon conviction thereof shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding 1,000 dollars or to imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding 2 years or by both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court."

Then, having been a convicted felon, his life would have restrictions.

Back then, driving a motor vehicle upon the roadways by a Natural Person was considered a right, as Previously Noted (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48009-Protect-amp-Serve&p=731832#post731832). Not so with the Artificial Person, where license would have to be obtained for permission to use the roadways for profit or gain, a privilege granted by the State.

Since that time, the State has usurped this right of the people, and has blurred the distinction between the natural person and artificial person to the point that the right has now disappeared, and has been replaced by a state granted privilege, as Previously Noted (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48009-Protect-amp-Serve&p=731994#post731994). The Felonious Driving Act has since been repealed, and in its place, a whole litany infractions in a Motor Vehicle Code.

Gunny
12-14-2015, 07:37 AM
In 1931, Michigan enacted the Felonious Driving Act within the Penal Code of Michigan:

"Every person who drives any vehicle upon a highway carelessly and heedlessly in wilful and wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property and thereby injuring so as to cripple any person, but not causing death, shall be guilty of the offense of felonious driving and upon conviction thereof shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding 1,000 dollars or to imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding 2 years or by both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court."

Then, having been a convicted felon, his life would have restrictions.

Back then, driving a motor vehicle upon the roadways by a Natural Person was considered a right, as Previously Noted (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48009-Protect-amp-Serve&p=731832#post731832). Not so with the Artificial Person, where license would have to be obtained for permission to use the roadways for profit or gain, a privilege granted by the State.

Since that time, the State has usurped this right of the people, and has blurred the distinction between the natural person and artificial person to the point that the right has now disappeared, and has been replaced by a state granted privilege, as Previously Noted (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48009-Protect-amp-Serve&p=731994#post731994). The Felonious Driving Act has since been repealed, and in its place, a whole litany infractions in a Motor Vehicle Code.

Dude, don't you wish you were even 1/4 as smart as you think you are? Driving is a privilege, not a Right. The use of public roadways is a privilege, not a Right.

indago
12-14-2015, 07:38 AM
Look at the title of the thread. First word is "implied". Kind of like you attempting to imply all cops are bad for the acts of the few. You want to take away their ability to do anything yet still expect them to do their job. I know THIS story. 21 years in the military will teach it to you REAL well.

You haven't even pointed out where I implied that I wondered why cops can't protect me. So far, you are striking out.

indago
12-14-2015, 07:40 AM
Dude, don't you wish you were even 1/4 as smart as you think you are? Driving is a privilege, not a Right. The use of public roadways is a privilege, not a Right.

Yes, you are completely Bona Fide Toadified!

As previously noted!

Gunny
12-14-2015, 07:47 AM
Yes, you are completely Bona Fide Toadified!

As previously noted!

In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about. Feel free to point out in the US Constitution where it says you have a right to drive. And don't feel bad if I don't wait for you to pull something else out of your ass. I got stuff to do.

You don't even have the Right to use the interstate. It was built for the military by Eisenhower during the Cold War for transfer of weapons and personnel. Not your personal convenience.

indago
12-14-2015, 08:42 AM
Feel free to point out in the US Constitution where it says you have a right to drive.

Well, if you will point out, in our historical records, what kind of automobile Thomas Jefferson had, or Alexander Hamilton, or even George Washington, I will gladly show you how they had the right to drive it on the roadways.

indago
12-15-2015, 07:55 AM
Driving is a privilege, not a Right.

Legal communities of the time say it was a right. You say it's not. Now, who are we to believe: the legal communities, or Ol' Huff'nPuff?