Forums

not a lie. they can compel a blood test if you won't blow. but the fact of the matter is they almost never do, one because they're not trained to draw blood and two because the last thing they want to do is drive you to the hospital and sit around while blood is drawn. so usually, yes, it is just a threat to get you to blow.

Privilege against self incrimination only involves actually speaking evidence against yourself. I asked in my con law class in law school how they can use your own body as evidence against you despite the prohibition in the constitution, and the courts have held that it only applies to just testimony.

Driving is a privilege NOT a right in the Commonwealth of Virginia.   When you sign for your license at the DMV you have given the state or its agents (the police) to take a sample of your breath and blood if they suspect you of driving drunk.  It is true you can say no but you will be charged with a Civil Penalty called Refusal.  The state will suspend your license to drive for an entire year.  If you take the test and are the drunk your license will also be suspended for a year but you will be able to get a restricted one after a short time.  So the two questions you have to ask is 1) why must you drive drunk or close to it when there are buses and cabs everywhere in Arlington? 2) how long do you want to lose your license?

More Importantly….Are there studies that show that at .079 you aren't drunk but that at .08 you instantaneously become drunk? Or some study that shows that the decision making abilities of people with different weights are negatively impaired the same amount by the same amount of alcohol. That alcohol tolerance, family history, emotional state, physical health don't affect one's resistance to alcohol? No?

I may be rusty, but I'm pretty sure that below .05 presumes that you aren't impaired, that .05 to .07 makes to presumption of sobriety or impairment, and that .08 presumes impairment or intoxication.

I will probably get hammered for this, but I think that there is a big difference between driving  w/ .08 BAC, at 3:00 AM on a saturday night, doing 25 MPH, on 16th Street, in a Ford Focus, and driving w/ a .16 BAC, at 5:00 PM on a Tuesday doing 70 MPH on Rte. 50 in a Dumptruck. The law doesn't seem to distinguish between the two, and I think it's pretty sad that in our zeal to keep ourselves safe that we are willing to foregoe the presumption of innocence, and the application of reason to each situation individually.

Really, Noone minds that we've thrown away the presumption of innocence, but god forbid, you suggest putting breathalyzers in every car, because gosh-darnit, people have rights.

I am very pro-law enforcement and pro-police. That said, the DUI laws are out of hand and the presumption of guilt along with the invasion of privacy that go along with the laws is mind numbing. .08 isn't drunk by most standards but every chance groups like MADD could get, they forced the laws to lower the number. Taking your license away instantly is another one. Even if driving is a privilege and not a right that still doesn't explain how you can lose your license automatically just for being arrested. Most laws in this country are there to protect the innocent from aggressive police and these do the opposite.

jotorious said:

And in that vein, let's just nuke all of the middle east, because we'll kill some terrorists, and save some Americans' lifes. All the people who aren't terrorists, well their rights to life are less important than ours.

Also, lets have mandatory DNA collection of everyone entering DC, because after your sister gets raped, I'm sure you'll think that the State maintaining a DNA repository of every citizen is justified.

 

And Guns too. After your cousin gets shot, I'm sure you'll support taking everyones guns away.

Can I ask specifically what aspect of DUI laws you are comparing these things to?