Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: Implied Consent

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,343
    Thanks (Given)
    243
    Thanks (Received)
    1256
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1282396

    Default Implied Consent

    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 Amendment’s 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 — and up to seven years — even if they are never convicted of drunken driving.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    article

  2. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, revelarts thanked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,343
    Thanks (Given)
    243
    Thanks (Received)
    1256
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1282396

    Default

    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.

  4. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  5. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3160
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by indago View Post
    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", . Couldnt have said it better myself! -Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  6. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    49,579
    Thanks (Given)
    36105
    Thanks (Received)
    27789
    Likes (Given)
    3460
    Likes (Received)
    11179
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by indago View Post
    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.

    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.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,343
    Thanks (Given)
    243
    Thanks (Received)
    1256
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1282396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Yeah. We need more drunk drivers out there.

    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...

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    49,579
    Thanks (Given)
    36105
    Thanks (Received)
    27789
    Likes (Given)
    3460
    Likes (Received)
    11179
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by indago View Post
    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 DOn't be a f-ing bad guy and no one's going to bother you.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  9. Thanks Elessar thanked this post
  10. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,343
    Thanks (Given)
    243
    Thanks (Received)
    1256
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1282396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Yeah. We need more drunk drivers out there.

    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?

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mouth of the Rogue River, Oregon USA
    Posts
    9,585
    Thanks (Given)
    8103
    Thanks (Received)
    7926
    Likes (Given)
    1479
    Likes (Received)
    1560
    Piss Off (Given)
    3
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19808680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by indago View Post
    "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.
    I have lost my mind. If found, please give it a snack and return it?

    "I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same of others"...John Wayne in "The Shootist"

    A Deplorable!

  12. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,251
    Thanks (Given)
    7207
    Thanks (Received)
    11746
    Likes (Given)
    1048
    Likes (Received)
    1381
    Piss Off (Given)
    4
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by indago View Post
    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 Amendment’s 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 — and up to seven years — even if they are never convicted of drunken driving.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    article


    Does that 4th amendment apply BEFORE, or AFTER a drunk driver has killed someone while DUI???
    I love to make Liberals Cry, and Whine.
    So, this is for them.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST !

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    16,762
    Thanks (Given)
    94
    Thanks (Received)
    1751
    Likes (Given)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    166
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    13
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9306086

    Default

    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.

  14. Thanks Elessar thanked this post
  15. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mouth of the Rogue River, Oregon USA
    Posts
    9,585
    Thanks (Given)
    8103
    Thanks (Received)
    7926
    Likes (Given)
    1479
    Likes (Received)
    1560
    Piss Off (Given)
    3
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19808680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gabosaurus View Post
    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.
    I have lost my mind. If found, please give it a snack and return it?

    "I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same of others"...John Wayne in "The Shootist"

    A Deplorable!

  16. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,206
    Thanks (Given)
    5230
    Thanks (Received)
    5014
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gabosaurus View Post
    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.

  17. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,343
    Thanks (Given)
    243
    Thanks (Received)
    1256
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1282396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gabosaurus View Post
    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?

  18. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    49,579
    Thanks (Given)
    36105
    Thanks (Received)
    27789
    Likes (Given)
    3460
    Likes (Received)
    11179
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gabosaurus View Post
    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?
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  19. Thanks Perianne thanked this post
  20. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,343
    Thanks (Given)
    243
    Thanks (Received)
    1256
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1282396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    You wonder why the cops can't protect you...
    Point out where I ever wondered that, oh seer of things unseen!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums