Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:03:38 PM EDT
Refuse to take a BAC test and lose your license for a longer period and become a "criminal" in some states.

So become a criminal just for being a suspect and no fifth amendment protections.

Should citizens be forced to incriminate themselves?

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BREATH_TEST_LAWS?SITE=PAPOT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-01-19-14-59-26

Tougher Penalties Sought for DWI Suspects

By CARRIE SPENCER GHOSE
Associated Press Writer

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- States are trying to toughen penalties for suspected drunken drivers who refuse to take a breath test, arguing motorists too often get a milder penalty than if they had provided evidence that could convict them.

Bills to lengthen license suspensions or make it a criminal offense to refuse a test are pending in five states, including Ohio, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, where the percentages of people refusing are among the highest in the nation.

Nationwide, an average of 25 percent of people pulled over on suspicion of drunken driving refuse to take a breath test, which is designed to estimate the amount of alcohol in the blood, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In every state but Nevada, the punishment is a suspended driver's license. Still, people who refuse believing they would fail a test might avoid a drunken driving conviction and jail time.



"We are seeing cases where people are being stopped 10, 15, 20, 30 times," said Massachusetts Rep. Todd Smola. "Every single case they are refusing the breath test, paying their lawyer a few bucks."

Defense attorneys and motorist groups oppose stricter penalties, and some lawmakers don't see the need.

A proposal in Illinois would increase suspensions to one year from six months. Most drunken driving cases are handled within that six months, said Rep. Robert Molaro, a Democrat from Chicago. A convicted driver would then get a more severe penalty: a revoked license. An acquitted motorist would still be punished by the suspension, which would be unfair, he said.

"What do we gain by going to a year? I don't get it," Molaro said.


In all, bills were introduced in 15 states in 2005. Some didn't make it to the debate stage. Maryland, Montana and Virginia approved stricter punishment, with Montana adding up to a $2,000 fine and two days to six months in jail if a person is caught driving with a license that was suspended for refusing a test, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In Ohio, a Senate-passed proposal to double the length of most license suspensions now goes to the House. About 40 percent of Ohio suspects refuse the test, the sixth highest among 41 states where data was available, according to a study by the NHTSA. That's despite the state being among 19 that already adds penalties such as jail time to the license suspension.

Motorists refuse tests for many reasons. Maybe they have been drinking and fear failing. Some have heard stories that the machines record some diabetes symptoms as drunkenness. Those with previous drunken driving convictions might be trying to avoid a felony conviction from another arrest.

"The major problem is not with the first-time people," said Martin Aubry, municipal prosecutor in Perrysburg in northwest Ohio. "The more convictions you've had, or the more times you've been stopped, you might learn from your previous experience not to take the breath test."

Defense attorneys and motorist groups say it's unfair to force someone to face a criminal conviction for a test that might be inaccurate.

The machines are supposed to exclude results measuring artificially high alcohol levels if the person vomits or burps, increasing the amount of alcohol in the mouth. That alcohol hasn't yet reached the blood, and thus the brain.

Attorneys question the overall reliability of the machines. They say a direct blood test is the fairest and most accurate test.

"It's not what protects the presumption of innocence and what supports the burden of proof," said Brad Koffel, a Columbus defense attorney.

Prosecutors and law enforcement officers said they routinely test and calibrate their machines, and watch suspects closely for 20 minutes before testing to ensure no alcohol is brought up to the mouth.

The states with the lowest refusal rates have among the toughest penalties, with jail time in California and Nebraska and revoked vehicle registrations in Hawaii and Maine.

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:04:38 PM EDT
But it is for the children.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:06:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 1:13:08 PM EDT by LANCEMAN]
In Before someone says "It's a PRIVILEGE"

ETA: A buddy of mine refused to blow about 10 years ago in another state (He was over the limit). They took him to jail, he went to court, 6 month suspension. Somehow or another they dropped the ball and never notified Florida. His license was never suspended and it doesn't show up on his Florida record. They may have better communication between the states now with technology and all but how efficient is the government anyway
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:09:25 PM EDT
This guy I work with lost his liscense for a year for refusing to take a breathalizer. He claims that he wasnt drunk but I think he is full of crap. If he wasnt drunk then why did he refuse the test? I agree with the tougher penalties. Dont drink and drive, its that simple.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:33:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 1:34:57 PM EDT by legalese77]
Amendment V doesn't protect you from DNA testing, fingerprinting, voice analysis, handwriting exemplars, etc. I don't imagine it will apply here, either. DUI convictions are practically a cottage industry! Do you know how many substance abuse counselors would be unemployed without the current DUI schemes?

Anyhoo, don't drink and drive.

p.s., the article leaves out that if you are not a first offender in IL, automatic suspension for refusal goes from 6 months to three years.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:38:15 PM EDT
i doubt you could throw anyone in jail for refusing the test alone. the 5th amendment prevents that. however, losing the driver's licence is fair game. the cops could also get a warrant and get blood drawn perhaps....
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:44:24 PM EDT
Never take a FST and never take a FBT, you will never "pass" and then its your word against the leo. Carefully explain that you are not "resisting" and if the officer is still suspect, be willing to accompany them to their testing facility.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:46:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HoodyHoo21:
He claims that he wasnt drunk but I think he is full of crap. If he wasnt drunk then why did he refuse the test?



Ding Ding Ding We got a winna!!!

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!!
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:50:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:
Never take a FST and never take a FBT, you will never "pass" and then its your word against the leo.



So if you think you are under the legal limit you should just refuse the SFST's and automaticially get arrested?

Real good advice


Lot's of people who are under .08 pass the SFST's...lots of people over .08 don't.

The moral of the story is don't drink and drive.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:55:15 PM EDT

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.





Works for me!!!!!
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:56:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
the cops could also get a warrant and get blood drawn perhaps....



Which is being done more and more here in Texas.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 2:07:52 PM EDT
Easy way to avoid it. Don't drive. Ever.

After all, driving is a Constitutionally protected right.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 2:09:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
i doubt you could throw anyone in jail for refusing the test alone. the 5th amendment prevents that. however, losing the driver's licence is fair game. the cops could also get a warrant and get blood drawn perhaps....



Really? I jail people all the time for refusing a breath test....
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 2:11:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 2:14:44 PM EDT by happycynic]

Originally Posted By PsyWarrior:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.





Works for me!!!!!




Bah! The Constitution is so last century. The Supreme Court hasn't even looked at the thing since the 30s.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 2:11:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 2:12:40 PM EDT by LEO916]
In my state, if someone refuses the intox. it is automatic loss of license for atleast 90 days and up to 6 yrs depending on the factors of the case. The DA and Judges look at it as automatic guilt as well, its great.

The intox is something you must do if you have a license in our state. If an officer ask you to do it, you must do it. Just like field sobreity tests.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 3:05:30 PM EDT
Here, you can refuse a preliminary alcohol csceening devise if you are 21 or older. However if arrested you are required to submitt a blood or breath sample. The 5th doesnt allow to destruction of evidence and the alcohol in your blood is evidence. We will seize that evidence, by force if necessary.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 8:59:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Here, you can refuse a preliminary alcohol csceening devise if you are 21 or older. However if arrested you are required to submitt a blood or breath sample. The 5th doesnt allow to destruction of evidence and the alcohol in your blood is evidence. We will seize that evidence, by force if necessary.



So if I'm accused of a sexual assault will you seize my sperm by force aswell?

I've heard rumors of them letting more fags on the force but this is rediculous.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:03:04 PM EDT
anyone know what the FL penalty is for refusing to take a breathalyzer?
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:08:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:
Never take a FST and never take a FBT, you will never "pass" and then its your word against the leo.

And now, back to reality
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:12:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garage-Logician:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
i doubt you could throw anyone in jail for refusing the test alone. the 5th amendment prevents that. however, losing the driver's licence is fair game. the cops could also get a warrant and get blood drawn perhaps....



Really? I jail people all the time for refusing a breath test....



really? has it ever been challenged on 5th amendment grounds? i thought you could just lose your licence to drive if you refused, since you have no right to drive on the gov't roads...
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:23:51 PM EDT

If he wasnt drunk then why did he refuse the test?

If you have nothing to hide, do you mind if I search your house? Let me know when I can stop by.z
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:07:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Here, you can refuse a preliminary alcohol csceening devise if you are 21 or older. However if arrested you are required to submitt a blood or breath sample. The 5th doesnt allow to destruction of evidence and the alcohol in your blood is evidence. We will seize that evidence, by force if necessary.



So if I'm accused of a sexual assault will you seize my sperm by force aswell?

I've heard rumors of them letting more fags on the force but this is rediculous.



Don't need your sperm. We WILL hold you down and take your blood though, same DNA afterall.

As for the breath test, go right ahead and refuse. It cuts my paperwork/time spent in half, Fast tracks your conviction, always ends in prosecution, and saves us money on testing supplies.

How many times do we have to tell you guys this? It's mentioned in EVERY weekly DWI thread.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:21:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Originally Posted By Garage-Logician:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
i doubt you could throw anyone in jail for refusing the test alone. the 5th amendment prevents that. however, losing the driver's licence is fair game. the cops could also get a warrant and get blood drawn perhaps....



Really? I jail people all the time for refusing a breath test....



really? has it ever been challenged on 5th amendment grounds? i thought you could just lose your licence to drive if you refused, since you have no right to drive on the gov't roads...



last time I heard the .gov was of the people by the people. so those roads belong to the people. the .gov doesn't own anything.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:25:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fourays2:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Originally Posted By Garage-Logician:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
i doubt you could throw anyone in jail for refusing the test alone. the 5th amendment prevents that. however, losing the driver's licence is fair game. the cops could also get a warrant and get blood drawn perhaps....



Really? I jail people all the time for refusing a breath test....



really? has it ever been challenged on 5th amendment grounds? i thought you could just lose your licence to drive if you refused, since you have no right to drive on the gov't roads...



last time I heard the .gov was of the people by the people. so those roads belong to the people. the .gov doesn't own anything.



You heard wrong. This is all government land, and we're just squatting on it.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:36:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fourays2:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Originally Posted By Garage-Logician:

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
i doubt you could throw anyone in jail for refusing the test alone. the 5th amendment prevents that. however, losing the driver's licence is fair game. the cops could also get a warrant and get blood drawn perhaps....



Really? I jail people all the time for refusing a breath test....



really? has it ever been challenged on 5th amendment grounds? i thought you could just lose your licence to drive if you refused, since you have no right to drive on the gov't roads...



last time I heard the .gov was of the people by the people. so those roads belong to the people. the .gov doesn't own anything.



Why don't you try and take a section home and see what happens to you?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:42:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 6:43:58 AM EDT by Hydguy]

Originally Posted By justice23:

Originally Posted By HoodyHoo21:
He claims that he wasnt drunk but I think he is full of crap. If he wasnt drunk then why did he refuse the test?



Ding Ding Ding We got a winna!!!

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!!



So why don't yo just go an hand in all your firearms now, and avoid the rush when they become illegal? Or is THAT when you will make your stand?

I rarely drink, and would refuse a breath test. Unless you commit an offense that is pretty big (such as weaving back and forth), there isn't much to get you on for DWI.
You will have to get a good lawyer, but it can be done.

The one time I got popped for DWI, the cop gave the case away (and he wasn't trying to be nice. He thought that I would bet screwed by the military), and I didn't even have to hire a lawyer. Haven't done it since then, and that was over 10 years ago.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:44:08 AM EDT
What if you are "over the limit" but the limit is artificially low? In DC, they can tell you you are over the limit based on a whim. A lady here who had one glass of wine and didn't blow over the BAC score was still arrested.

I say keep dangerous drunks off the road. But two or three beers in a 200 lb. guy ain't drunk, fellas.

G
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:46:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 6:48:32 AM EDT by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Here, you can refuse a preliminary alcohol csceening devise if you are 21 or older. However if arrested you are required to submitt a blood or breath sample. The 5th doesnt allow to destruction of evidence and the alcohol in your blood is evidence. We will seize that evidence, by force if necessary.



So if I'm accused of a sexual assault will you seize my sperm by force aswell?

I've heard rumors of them letting more fags on the force but this is rediculous.



Don't need your sperm. We WILL hold you down and take your blood though, same DNA afterall.

As for the breath test, go right ahead and refuse. It cuts my paperwork/time spent in half, Fast tracks your conviction, always ends in prosecution, and saves us money on testing supplies.

How many times do we have to tell you guys this? It's mentioned in EVERY weekly DWI thread.



You know I can agree on the suspended license. You signed the papers and said you would allow the test when requested. So follow the contract, change the laws, or suffer the consequences. However basing a criminal conviction on "we have no evidence other then the fact he didn't allow us to gather evidence" crosses the line to me. Of course I guess there is always the officer's say-so that you appeared intoxicated or that he smelled alchohol, I don't see how that proves you were over the limit though.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 2:23:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
Of course I guess there is always the officer's say-so that you appeared intoxicated or that he smelled alchohol, I don't see how that proves you were over the limit though.



In most states there is no "limit." Impaired is impaired. .08% is just the point at which the courts presume you are impaired. if the police can provide evidence of impairment you can be convicted even if your BAC is below a .08%

I have a few convictions for .05% BAC "drunk drivers" who had Rx meds or marijuana in their system too. Just as impaired as any .08% straight alcohol "drunk."
Top Top