I strongly doubt that any particular state’s law would be found to mean that the legislature intended that the ONLY result permissible from a refusal is XXXX. In other words, the mere fact that the legislature proscribed a refusal penalty doesn’t mean that this is the only outcome.
Is there a reason why a US State couldn’t say (as they have in Australia and New Zealand, and- from the sounds of it- Canada) that “A condition of using the public roads in this state is that the police have the authority to pull you over for/ask you to undergo a breathalyser test for absolutely no reason at all beyond the fact you are operating a motor vehicle.”?
Which works out to house arrest for many in rural locations without public transit. If you have to give up up your rights or face de facto house arrest do you really have those rights?
yeah, the fourth amendment.
Yes, he’d be physically restrained while a medical technician draws the blood. He’d then be charged with something like assualt, contempt of court, or obstruction of justice.
The legislature has said you must not rob banks, and that if you do, then XXXX. The police are still allowed to force you to not rob a bank.
“No refusal” DUI checkpoint? I’ll drink to that!
Happy New Year everyone!
Please explain what your illegal drug and gun operation has to do with your state issued driver’s license and DUI checkpoints. Thanks.
IANAL (obviously) but is the legal principle here similar to it now being illegal to refuse to be grope by TSA and leaving the security line? It seems that refusal to submit to a search is becoming illegal all by itself.
no it’s not the same. the judge-by-the-roadside-to-sign-off-on-the-warrant isn’t making anything extra illegal - it’s just eliminating the delay between a cop arresting you for DUI and getting a court order to force you to give a breathalyzer/blood sample (based on the probable cause of the police officer) when you have decided to retract the implied consent you had previously given by virtue of driving on roads/getting licensed.
the TSA security lines (from what I understand, but understanding could be faulty) is based in either a) TSAs overly generous interpretation of federal law/regulations and basically arresting first and worrying about the issues later b) an actual federal statute that makes it illegal to withdraw consent to a security screening/voluntary search once that consent has been given (in an attempt to close a loophole where a prospective terrorist can back out if he thinks he’s going to get busted)
Every cop, lawyer, and judge on the planet will deny it, but in reality, this has always been the case.
Do you have a cite for any of this? This sitedoes indicate that a detained driver is required to submit to roadside testing. Failure to do so, as noted above, carries non-trivial penalites, and, I’d assume, PC for lots else.
Any lawyers want to weigh in on this?
Nothing you’re talking about is a privilege–what you’re talking about here are rights. Driving, on the other hand, is considered a legal privilege, not a right. That’s the legal basis for implied consent laws.
Care to elaborate?
Yet another goosestep along the road to Naziism. Yes, the precedent is certainly there to allow it, it has been for over three decades when they were allowed to stop everybody and ask them.
I’ve been to a couple of these stops. It isn’t a problem as I never drink. So I mouth off a lot about gestapo and unreasonable searches and seizures. I provide them with my license and my registration and I refuse to answer any other questions on the grounds that it may incriminate me. They usually at this point let me go. I don’t have any problems with blood tests, having once been sick enough to have several a day drawn by incompetents.
“the authority to pull you over for/ask you to undergo a breathalyser test for absolutely no reason at all beyond the fact you are operating a motor vehicle” is pretty unreasonable.
And many people are in situations, that they can’t practically extract themselves from, where lose of license is de facto house arrest (especially in the winter).
As I said before, if you have to give up up your rights or face de facto house arrest do you really have those rights?
I agree. The logic behind it is pretty chilling. Using the internet is a “privilege”, would it be okay to make connecting to the internet “implied consent” for the government to search your computer at will? What’s to prevent the government defining making a phone call as implied consent for a wire tap? Phone calls are privileges.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, and it’s been implemented in a lot of places that have failed to turn into fascist nazi police states.