To sum it up, kanicbird-there is no magic procedure, circumstance, phrase or loophole that will get you out of a drunk driving charge if an officer of the law thinks that you are driving under the influence. If there were, it would damn well have been taken care of by now.
I agree 100%.
Also, if you try that "A demon possessed me!’ defense, you might get rewarded with free room and board-psychiatric observation if the judge believes you, jail if he doesn’t.
Have I told you recently that I love you, treis?
True. I bet even Stephen Hawking is capable of refusing the test.
Sure. Just like the law protects your option to go through red light, with the consequence of being charged for it.
Can you tell me what this protection by the law is? I can’t even fathom what you might mean by this. How is an option protected if there’s a charge for taking one side of the option?
No, it is not a violation of law to refuse to take the test. Your forfeiture of your license is something already agreed to. I don’t believe you can be charged with refusing to take the test. And if the police have no other evidence that you are intoxicated, or committed some other violation, they couldn’t charge you with anything.
It is quite clear that the police have an advantageous situation if you appear to be intoxicated, which is why they pulled you over. And that’s because you agreed to that giving them that advantage when you got your license, or apparently just by driving on the public roads. They are also more likely to be believed if they lie in many cases. And that’s what happens whenever you encounter the police. And you are at a serious disadvantage if you actually are intoxicated, because you have no legitimate defense to the charge.
A quick Google search gives me the following (bolding mine):
http://www.willdefenddui.com/dui-refusal.php
http://www.duimacdowelllaw.com/PracticeAreas/Refusal-Breath-Blood-Test.asp
http://www.virginiaduilawyer.net/virginiaunreasonablerefusal.html
And one for Texas:
You’re being charged with something when you violate the implied consent law.
You have consented to a DUI test. The penalty is another matter and loss of license is a possible penalty among others.
I stand corrected. But some of your cites do not specify an actual offense of refusal. And all of the penaties for a first offense are, guess what, suspension of your license. The same thing that would happen if this was not specified as an offense. I can’t really be sure that any of your cites explicitly state that a first time refusal is a specific crime or misdemeanor either. But since their is no difference in the outcome, it all remains the same in the end.
Everybody, please don’t think about this thread while driving, remember what Uncle Buckle the Safety Buffalo says, ‘If you drive, don’t think. If you think, don’t drive’.
I didn’t bother looking for other penalties such as fines, but another quick Goole search resulted in this (bolding mine):
http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1271_BreathTest.htm
If it weren’t an offense, you couldn’t be charged with anything and there would be no loss of license.
As I have said, the laws are different in different states. Way back when, I chose to talk about Texas because they apparently do not treat refusal as a criminal matter – only administrative.
Not all states allow refusal. Some do.
Not all states treat refusal as an administrative matter. Some do.
Not all states treat refusal as a criminal matter. Some do.
Well that one pisses me off too. Stop quibbling over details and get to this kind of important stuff faster. A traffic violation isn’t necessarily a crime, so that’s probably how they get away with it. Maybe one of the lawyers will jump in and give us the legal justification for that jack-booted fascist deprivation of rights.
We’re talking about states where there are implied consent laws. They don’t allow refusal; that’s why there’s a penalty for refusing.
IANAL, but I don’t believe traffic violations such as being ticketed for going through a red light aren’t treated as criminal matters either. That doesn’t mean “the law protects your option” to go through red light and it doesn’t mean the law protects your option to refuse a breath test, which is a statement you made that I’m still waiting for you to explain. How is an option protected by law if there’s a charge for taking one side of the option?
Why should we need consent to take a breathalyzer?
Illegal search and seizure of our breath. If you don’t have a right to breathe, what good are your other rights? Also, the ^&th amendment, which guarantees our right to privacy.
Take my breath awaaaayyyy…
Rather than explaining the same thing yet again, let me link to a story from Maryland, which is an implied consent state.
Crap, missed edit window.
My point once again is that in many places, including some implied consent states, the police cannot compel you to take a breathalyzer under many circumstances. There may be a penalty for doing so, but ultimately the police ultimately they may not have recourse to physically force you to take the breathalyzer. That is why I say someone has a choice on whether or not to take the test.
I really wish you would just acknowledge the point that “requirement” can be used in more than one sense.
Last point I’m going to make: here’s the Maryland code that allows a police officer to “REQUEST” a preliminary breath test before arrest, which specifically states that refusal to take it shall not constitute a violation of the implied consent law:
Now, once we get past the preliminary test stage, if someone is DETAINED on suspicion of DUI, the Maryland code notes the following:
The code goes on to state that if a serious accident has occurred, a suspect may NOT refuse to take a chemical test.
From your link (bolding mine):
Still want to claim it’s not a requirement because you can’t be forced to comply, a point I also made earlier?
Good. Proving you wrong is getting old.
It does not “specifically state” that refusal to take it shall not constitute a violation of the implied consent law. It states that it will not be a violation of 16-205.1, which is this:
Guess what it is a violation of? Exactly what you said it wasn’t a violation of, the implied consent law! This is stated in the very Maryland DUI Law web page which you just linked to a few posts back:
Fair cop. It’s a penalty.