No refusal weekend!!! HAVE A DD

[Machx2]

Because the only thing they know is that if they refuse, they get their license suspended for 180 days, almost no questions asked, until their DWI case is tried in court. Only then if found not guilty is the license reinstated. So I guess most think they haven't had THAT MUCH to drink.

If you don't know if you will or won't blow the legal limit, why would you?

Because most people that drive drunk, honestly don't believe they are drunk.

[Silverback]

Most drunk people won't refuse in the first place. Or at least the ones I get. They want to "prove" they are not drunk.

Because the only thing they know is that if they refuse, they get their license suspended for 180 days, almost no questions asked, until their DWI case is tried in court. Only then if found not guilty is the license reinstated. So I guess most think they haven't had THAT MUCH to drink.

If you don't know if you will or won't blow the legal limit, why would you?

[Machx2]

I agree with it being cheaper to get a cab, etc. And I'm 100 percent behind not getting behind the wheel drunk.

I'm defending what's a violation of your rights, and when you feel your rights have been violated, that you should fight it, and you have every right to fight it.

Most drunk people won't refuse in the first place. Or at least the ones I get. They want to "prove" they are not drunk.

[Silverback]

I don't know how any of that is violated by a judge granting a warrant for your blood. All no refusal does is speeds up the process to get the blood warrants if you were to refuse. Your lawyer will do nothing and will probably tell you to leave him alone at 2am lol.

It's the automatically issuing a warrant for your blood for ANYONE that refuses, that's pushing the limits of violating your rights.

You can't even issue a blood warrant without a defense attorney's representation in a murder trial.

[Osiris]

No I know what you are saying, but again, even if you get the warrant to take my blood, and do. I still requested an attorney before making any decisions, I never refused, only asked to speak to someone who makes a living understanding the laws before I make a decision. Then when the attorney fights it in court, they will ask the officers if I requested an attorney before making any decisions, which will show that I was within my rights to do so. I'm also sure the attorney would request a trial by jury, so that the jurors would be more apt to understand what a violation or rights it is to take blood from someone without their consent or allowing them to speak to an attorney.

This isn't a bash on any cops here, I understand you're doing what you're told to do by your superiors. But those making the laws here are way out of line, and once it reaches the Supreme Court, I guess it will be decided, but then what about everyone that had their blood taken against their wishes? Do they all get to sue the city/county/state for abusing their rights?

I see what you're saying: that it makes you look better in court, and the officers look worse. Throws the credibility to your side.

I would really like to see how this plays out. I just sure as hope that it won't be any of my cases! LOL.

[Silverback]

IMO it's not a fight worth fighting, constitutional or not. You'll spend A LOT more money than cab fare, or even renting a limo for the day.

I agree with it being cheaper to get a cab, etc. And I'm 100 percent behind not getting behind the wheel drunk.

I'm defending what's a violation of your rights, and when you feel your rights have been violated, that you should fight it, and you have every right to fight it.

[Machx2]

so based on my rights that you read to me upon my arrest, you immediately violate them?

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

Basically you are saying I no longer have the right to remain silent or to an attorney before you decide to take my blood?

I don't know how any of that is violated by a judge granting a warrant for your blood. All no refusal does is speeds up the process to get the blood warrants if you were to refuse. Your lawyer will do nothing and will probably tell you to leave him alone at 2am lol.

[Silverback]

The Miranda Rights... Ok, how do I explain this?

If you're being questioned, you have the right to refuse to answer any question. You don't have to say where you came from, how much you drank, refuse SFST's etc. However, if the officer feels that you are still operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway while intoxicated, you may still be arrested. If you then refuse the breath test, the officer may obtain a search warrant for your blood. At that point, there is NOTHING you can do to refuse that. Like I mentioned in my above post, just dispute the legalities in court.

No I know what you are saying, but again, even if you get the warrant to take my blood, and do. I still requested an attorney before making any decisions, I never refused, only asked to speak to someone who makes a living understanding the laws before I make a decision. Then when the attorney fights it in court, they will ask the officers if I requested an attorney before making any decisions, which will show that I was within my rights to do so. I'm also sure the attorney would request a trial by jury, so that the jurors would be more apt to understand what a violation or rights it is to take blood from someone without their consent or allowing them to speak to an attorney.

This isn't a bash on any cops here, I understand you're doing what you're told to do by your superiors. But those making the laws here are way out of line, and once it reaches the Supreme Court, I guess it will be decided, but then what about everyone that had their blood taken against their wishes? Do they all get to sue the city/county/state for abusing their rights?

[Osiris]

IMO it's not a fight worth fighting, constitutional or not. You'll spend A LOT more money than cab fare, or even renting a limo for the day.

This. And I'm sure it's been said somewhere here before, but why risk it when it's publicly announced before hand all over the media that it's a no refusal weekend, anyway?

[Big A]

IMO it's not a fight worth fighting, constitutional or not. You'll spend A LOT more money than cab fare, or even renting a limo for the day.

[Osiris]

so based on my rights that you read to me upon my arrest, you immediately violate them?

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

Basically you are saying I no longer have the right to remain silent or to an attorney before you decide to take my blood?

The Miranda Rights... Ok, how do I explain this?

If you're being questioned, you have the right to refuse to answer any question. You don't have to say where you came from, how much you drank, refuse SFST's etc. However, if the officer feels that you are still operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway while intoxicated, you may still be arrested. If you then refuse the breath test, the officer may obtain a search warrant for your blood. At that point, there is NOTHING you can do to refuse that. Like I mentioned in my above post, just dispute the legalities in court.

Again, i'm not saying anyone should refuse anything. You should just ask to have your attorney present before you make any decisions, as it's your right to consult an attorney to help you interpret the laws.

Absolutely its your right to have an attorney present with you during questioning... HOWEVER, during a traffic stop, arrest process, DWI investigation etc, an attorney won't be allowed to intervene with the investigation roadside. I've NEVER had an attorney present during a blood draw, because officers typically don't allow the defendants to make phone calls during the arrest process. The attorney cannot interfere with the blood draw process after a warrant has been issued for it.

[Silverback]

Oh, and the police won't fight the legalities. The DA will.

I understand that, but you're all on the same team there captain obvious

[Silverback]

It hasn't been ruled in the Supreme Court yet. It's going to be interesting to see how all this ultimately winds up. Anyhow, If a Judge does sign off on a search warrant for your blood, you cant refuse. You can fight all you want, but ultimately you'll get strapped down, and blood drawn from an IV this weekend. Unfortunately, I had that fight this weekend.

If it's you in the chair, just go with it, and fight out the legalities of it all in court. It's not worth getting more charges filed on BC you think you're getting the screw.

Again, i'm not saying anyone should refuse anything. You should just ask to have your attorney present before you make any decisions, as it's your right to consult an attorney to help you interpret the laws.

[Unicorn Jeff]

Movie stuff? That's what every DWI attorney will tell you to do. Don't refuse anything, just state that you don't feel comfortable making any decisions until your attorney is present.

A judge may still suspend your license for refusing to participate in testing, but it could keep a dwi off of your record. Again you still have the cameras to fight, but that's what a good attorney is for.

Even with a no refusal weekend, I bet there are some really good attorneys who have field days with the courts over personal rights being limited or abused.

I know a few people that don't have cameras on their squad cars

[Silverback]

You will also be strapped down in a chair and blood taken from you lol. You don't have to say a word, your lawyer can watch if thats what he likes to get off on.

so based on my rights that you read to me upon my arrest, you immediately violate them?

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

Basically you are saying I no longer have the right to remain silent or to an attorney before you decide to take my blood?