Of the Bill of Rights?

[LuvRPgrl]

As I already stated, no legislature is going to make refusing the breath test a felony...ain't gonna happen.

who said they should?

[Missileman]

Wow,,,you are some piece of work sometimes.

First you claim if a person doesnt give the breat test, then it proves their guilt, and then you claim innocent until proven guilty,,,,

I've never posted any such thing, in fact, just the opposite, that refusal of the test CAN'T be used to prove someone guilty which is why the BAT is needed for conviction. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from accusing me of saying something I haven't.

Im really laughing my ass off right now.


Uhhh, dude, an ear infection is neither a guilty nor innocent issue, its something the DEFENDENT CLAIMED, and hence, he now has the burden of proof, IF he is going to make that claim,

Sheesh,

I watched the OJ trial as his lawyers threw fantastic theory after fantastic theory on the wall and hoped that some stuck. They offered no proof for most of these wild propositions either. They only had to place doubt in the jury's mind. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

[Missileman]

who said they should?

There were a couple posters who suggested the problem could be solved by making the penalty for refusing the breath test more harsh.

[LuvRPgrl]

I've never posted any such thing, in fact, just the opposite, that refusal of the test CAN'T be used to prove someone guilty which is why the BAT is needed for conviction. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from accusing me of saying something I haven't..

Yea, I misread one of your posts,,,,,I thought you wrote, "....refusal of the test is proof of being drunk while driving...." (paraphrased)

when in fact, I missed the part you put "...they will never change the law so .....is proof...."

My bad.

I watched the OJ trial as his lawyers threw fantastic theory after fantastic theory on the wall and hoped that some stuck. They offered no proof for most of these wild propositions either. They only had to place doubt in the jury's mind. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

That trial in no way changes the fact that if you make a claim in the court room, you have to have proof. Plain and simple,

also, I suggest you never use the OJ trial as support for any arguement of law. It was a total anamoly

[LuvRPgrl]

There were a couple posters who suggested the problem could be solved by making the penalty for refusing the breath test more harsh.

Yea, they could make it more harsh. Doesnt mean it has to be a third or fourth degree felony or whatever someone may have suggested, then again, maybe they could or should.

Simple, make refusing the breath test the same as if they were convicted of drunk driving.

[revelarts]

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/16513455" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/16513455">Farmageddon Trailer</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/smallfarmproject">Kristin Canty</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

[fj1200]

<p><a href="http://vimeo.com/16513455">Farmageddon Trailer</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/smallfarmproject">Kristin Canty</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

Is this the sequel to HorselessCarriageageddon?

[logroller]

Simple, make refusing the breath test the same as if they were convicted of drunk driving.

That is the case with regards to the privilege of driving, but criminally it is not, and with good reason -- due process.

[LuvRPgrl]

That is the case with regards to the privilege of driving, but criminally it is not, and with good reason -- due process.

ALL I know is (I usually hate it when people say that ), there is no way on God's green earth that I WILL EVER allow a guv person to draw my blood. (Chest pushed out, fist pounding it), They will have to strap me down and knock me out.

I'm having a difficult time right now dealing with the NAZI check points local police are setting up these days under the guise of catching drunk drivers.

IF they want to catch drunk drivers, then why are they asking for your DL and proof of insurance?? BECAUSE ITS A FUCKING LIE, they just use emotional push button issues to get what they really want, an unarmed citizenry that can't hide, move about peacefully, or fight back.

[revelarts]

Police have Cell Phone readers in cars?
WHAT?
Some Say it MIGHT BE a 4th amendment issue.
Hmm let me think.

LOL
and it's in MICHIGAN State police.
While your kid buys their mandatory Priso..school lunch the cops scan you cell phone.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
ACLU seeks information on Michigan program that allows cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.

CelleBriteThe Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.

ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680. The ACLU found the charge outrageous.

"Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide," ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. "No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure."

A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."

The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

"With certain exceptions that do not apply here, a search cannot occur without a warrant in which a judicial officer determines that there is probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of criminal activity," Fancher wrote. "A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched."

The national ACLU is currently suing the Department of Homeland Security for its policy of warrantless electronic searches of laptops and cell phones belonging to people entering the country who are not suspected of committing any crime.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pPpGhdqpfzg?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pPpGhdqpfzg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[LuvRPgrl]

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/16513455" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/16513455">Farmageddon Trailer</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/smallfarmproject">Kristin Canty</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

FU___KING control freaks freak me out. I hate them. They need to mtob, go get a life. Thats what happens when a society is so successful. I feel I have more freedom when Im in Mexico or the Philippines.

The control freaks are really really good at gaining power and control via rules, and regulations instead of out and out laws, which would otherwise be considered unconstitutional. But by enforcing them as regulations, it never has the chance to see the day of light of a courtroom.

[revelarts]

Collection of U.S.Outrages...
Watching it now i'm at the 15 minitue mark ..

not sure where it goes but it pisses you off major when it's collected like this.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AQv-sdMCClQ?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AQv-sdMCClQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[revelarts]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

....INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."...

very bad judgment by the court.
Now the cops have another excuse to get into your house. just push their way in and if you "resist" off to jail wit ya.

But worse judgment by the guy. He should have never went back into the house with a complaining wife.

[Gaffer]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home



very bad judgment by the court.
Now the cops have another excuse to get into your house. just push their way in and if you "resist" off to jail wit ya.

But worse judgment by the guy. He should have never went back into the house with a complaining wife.

I agree, the courts wrong on this. But denying the police entrance can escalate real fast. Best to let them do their thing, then sue the pants off them. If your doing nothing wrong you don't need to worry, and if you are you still might beat it because of illegal search. They can enter but they can't search without a warrant or permission.

[fj1200]

I agree, the courts wrong on this. But denying the police entrance can escalate real fast.

It's probably a good ruling for the very reason you mention. This doesn't make the search and entry legal but resistance is a whole other matter.