Of the Bill of Rights?

[Missileman]

Who would that be?

The people arguing against the state collecting the evidence necessary to conduct those prosecutions.

[revelarts]

The people arguing against the state collecting the evidence necessary to conduct those prosecutions.

is what you said

...People arguing against cops beating a confessions out of people...
is what i hear.


People are arguing against the gov't criminally taking peoples blood without permission. Forcing self incrimination from a person body.

Whats wrong with a video tape of slurred speech and wobbly walking, ALONG with the cops testimony of the way they were driving and the smell of their breath Missle?

[fj1200]

The people arguing against the state collecting the evidence necessary to conduct those prosecutions.

So no one should have an expectation of privacy, they should be required to testify against themselves, and the state doesn't need to obtain a warrant to collect evidence to conduct prosecutions.

Glad to know where you stand.

[Gaffer]

Why are blood tests and breath tests necessary. Because it is hard evidence. A video showing someone appearing to be drunk isn't enough, a good lawyer will put in reasonable doubt. The cops testimony is still hearsay when it comes down to it.

Is the person on medication? Are they using illegal drugs. Not only can the blood test be used against them, it can be used for them. It can identify what they have in their system. I have never seen or heard of anyone holding someone down to take blood and I transported a lot of prisoners to the hospital.

The tightening of DUI laws all comes back to trial lawyers demanding more and more proof their client was guilty. It's all about trying to create a reasonable doubt.

[fj1200]

Why are blood tests and breath tests necessary. Because it is hard evidence.

No one is arguing it's not. Get a warrant or get consent. Make the penalty much harsher than it currently is so we don't have 3rd, 4th, 5th timers that Mm? brought up.

[Missileman]

is what you said

...People arguing against cops beating a confessions out of people...
is what i hear.

That argument will fly just as soon as you provide a link where a judge issued a warrant to obtain a confession through beating.

People are arguing against the gov't criminally taking peoples blood without permission. Forcing self incrimination from a person body.

It's not being done criminally. What's the difference between this and getting a DNA sample to convict a rapist? Do you consider that self-incrimination too?

Whats wrong with a video tape of slurred speech and wobbly walking, ALONG with the cops testimony of the way they were driving and the smell of their breath Missle?

"Your honor, my client had an inner ear infection that affected his balance, he has a speech impediment, and had consumed but a single beer. The state has no evidence to the contrary." Case dismissed!

[Missileman]

So no one should have an expectation of privacy, they should be required to testify against themselves, and the state doesn't need to obtain a warrant to collect evidence to conduct prosecutions.

Glad to know where you stand.

Where have I said anything about testifying against themselves? And the blood IS being taken with consent. They are changing the law to include the blood draws in the implied consent in force when you operate the vehicle. There is no evidentiary difference between the breath test and blood test...are you now arguing the cops have no legal basis to conduct breath tests?

[Missileman]

No one is arguing it's not. Get a warrant or get consent. Make the penalty much harsher than it currently is so we don't have 3rd, 4th, 5th timers that Mm? brought up.

You can't get the convictions to render those harsher penalties without irrefutable evidence.

[fj1200]

It's not being done criminally. What's the difference between this and getting a DNA sample to convict a rapist? Do you consider that self-incrimination too?

Last I checked you needed a warrant to obtain a DNA sample.

Where have I said anything about testifying against themselves? And the blood IS being taken with consent. They are changing the law to include the blood draws in the implied consent in force when you operate the vehicle. There is no evidentiary difference between the breath test and blood test...are you now arguing the cops have no legal basis to conduct breath tests?

No, where did I? Why are they not forcing a breathalyzer and if there is already implied consent on that how is it being refused?

[logroller]

Why are blood tests and breath tests necessary. Because it is hard evidence. A video showing someone appearing to be drunk isn't enough, a good lawyer will put in reasonable doubt. The cops testimony is still hearsay when it comes down to it.

Is the person on medication? Are they using illegal drugs. Not only can the blood test be used against them, it can be used for them. It can identify what they have in their system. I have never seen or heard of anyone holding someone down to take blood and I transported a lot of prisoners to the hospital.

The tightening of DUI laws all comes back to trial lawyers demanding more and more proof their client was guilty. It's all about trying to create a reasonable doubt.

Cops' testimony is/ can be expert in nature, not to be confused with hearsay. Hearsay cant be used against you in a criminal court of law, but can be in the course of an investigation. For example, if someone reports erratic driving, the police have reasonable suspicion to stop a car fitting a similar description. This could be admitted in court to establish the justification necessary to make a legal stop, but not to arrest and bring charges. Due process delineates reasonable suspicion and probable cause; the jurisprudence of hearsay fails to transcend from the former to the latter. The extent to which a witness and their testimony is considered reasonable, probable or questionable is the solemn duty of the judge and jury.

It's important to remind ourselves that our justice system operates under a presumption of innocence; the burden of proof otherwise, is upon the prosecution. The role of legal representation, in criminal proceedings, is to ensure this burden is satisfied "beyond a reasonable doubt", to which a lawyer, a legal expert, is sworn to uphold.

[logroller]

Here's a story about hearsay-

I was in college and had a late night call (3AM) from lady in waiting, colloquially, "a booty call." So I borrowed a friends car (a new Z28) and, upon passing through a gutter onto a heavily crowned roadway, entered into a lateral drift. I soon regained positive traction and the roadway was clear of any traffic so I wasn't overly concerned until I remembered the campus police usually wait in the adjacent parking lot-- so I proceeded with caution and in observance of all traffic laws. Well, not long after a patrol car exits the parking lot with haste and proceeds to stop me. After the usually niceties of "whose car is this?", "does he know you have it?", "please step out of the car." and "Have you been drinking. Breathe on my hand." he then informs me of why he stopped me.
"I stopped you because I heard you burn out back there."
"Oh. Well there was some water in the gutter and I don't know if you've ever driven a car like this..."
"NO" he interjects.
"Well its fast! And it lost traction but I got it under control as soon as I could." (All true BTW, Don't lie, deny)
"That's not what happened-- you stood on it!"
I just shrugged, thinking that's my story and sticking to it.
He proceeds to give me a lecture on the punishment for misdemeanor wreckless driving- exhibition of speed, to which I listened, in silence. Frustrated, he had no choice but to release me as his evidence was based on what he heard, not saw, to which little doubt was cast upon my version of what occurred.

With that said- did I intentionally stand on it? - I'll plead the fifth!

[LuvRPgrl]

"Your honor, my client had an inner ear infection that affected his balance, he has a speech impediment, and had consumed but a single beer. The state has no evidence to the contrary." Case dismissed!

Ok, show proof of the ear infection, does he have anything from any doctor PRIOR to the incident, that proves a doctor diagnosed him with an ear infection. NO, ok, Ithought not, you cant just make up lies without proof supporting it

He has a speech impediment, funny, we have witnesses here who will testify they have spoken to him before and he has no speech impediment, please bring in some people ready to perjure themselves, who will claim he has a speech impediment

any more lies to claim to?

[LuvRPgrl]

Refusal of the breath test is not sufficient evidence to convict a drunk driver of a 3rd or 4th or 5th(or higher) offense FELONY. The drawing of blood is hardly a "dangerous" procedure AND it's being drawn at the option of the offender.

They don't need the refusal to take a breath test to be evidence in another crime,

they can make the refusal itself an illegal act, and make a penalty for that act itself.

[logroller]

If you refuse to submit, there is no admission of guilt, but you likewise have failed to vindicate claims to your sobriety, thus leaving the question as to your ability to operate a vehicle under any circumstance-- to which they can revoke your driving privileges. Truth is, some people can drive better than others, despite any differences in sobriety; that's why there are multiple laws which pertain to operating a vehicle in a wreckless or criminal manner- including under the influence and over .08%BAC. T

When no objective evidence exists, who is more credible-- a sober person claiming another is drunk, or the alleged drunk person claiming they aren't?

[Missileman]

Last I checked you needed a warrant to obtain a DNA sample.

Or consent.

No, where did I? Why are they not forcing a breathalyzer and if there is already implied consent on that how is it being refused?

Dude...the breath test requires the cooperation and active participation of the testee. You can't just wave something in front of the perps face and get a result.