st. charles police

[t.nie]

The other thing that comes to mind is that the police being allowed to get a warrant to draw your blood when you refuse to blow is simply gathering evidence to prove your guilt or innocence. It doesn't automatically prove you guilty. So I don't see how being allowed to provide evidence of your innocence (that in fact you are not above the BA limit for a DWI) is such an awful injustice, or an erosion of your civil rights. It may convict you, but it may prove you innocent as well. And you have the right to present evidence of your innocence when you are accused. So in some ways, rather than being an erosion of your civil rights, it can have the outcome of protecting your right to not be wrongfully convicted.

 

[Phoenix 2]

T.NIE:

Take your time, read one word at a time, and try to look past my spelling errors.

The issue is NOT a dwi checkpoint, the issue IS the invasive taking of your blood by a govt. that has already shown a pattern of blatantly and repeatedly violating your constitutional rights.

This is just one more step in the wrong direction for a free society.

 

[t.nie]

At a dwi checkpoint everyone is considered a possiable offender without any probable cause ever being present whereas a presumption of everyones guilt is present.

At the airport you are stopped and have to submit to a search before being allowed to your gate. Would you say that there is a presumption of guilt at those checkpoints too? Would you also argue that no one should be forced to go through a security checkpoint at the airport because it is a violation of their civil rights?

 

[t.nie]

T.NIE:

Take your time, read one word at a time, and try to look past my spelling errors.

The issue is NOT a dwi checkpoint, the issue IS the invasive taking of your blood by a govt. that has already shown a pattern of blatantly and repeatedly violating your constitutional rights.

This is just one more step in the wrong direction for a free society.

So basically your saying you have no problem with the police field testing a drunk, but you draw the line on evidence gathering at taking bodily fluids with a warrant?

 

[midget racer]

hey, storeroom, he also missed country. he said county. what a maroon! ps. yes, i know, i meant moron; it was a joke. pretty funny, huh? i don't think i am gonna go to work tomorrow, just so i can follow this!

 

[midget racer]

as far as gathering bodily fluids to check/use as evidence, what would your reaction be if (God forbid) a female family member of yours was raped, and they used samples from inside her private area to gain dna, to convict some scumbag? would you be ok with that? i am real curious to see you answer that one. after all, in the vast majority of peoples' minds, that is alot more private than getting blood from your arm area. oh, and hey... i see that you do alot of avoiding the questions, dont avoid that one.

 

[theplummer]

I agree with Art (midgetracer) 100%.

Since you've mentioned history twice now phoenix2, what things like this have happened time and time again throught history, and what has happened to us as a result? I'm not much of a history buff.

And to the theplummer, if a person has just as much right to privacy in their car as they do at home I have 2 questions. 1. How come you can't drive naked? 2. How come (when I was in high school) the policemen always managed to come and interupt me and my girlfriends just about the time things were getting interesting? And yet another question for theplummer, Are you against dna testing and its use as evidence too? Because there is absolutely no difference between the collection of blood or collecting a hair folicle when you are making the argument about this being a violation of your civil rights.

I think some people need a to take a paranoia chill pill. Some of these statements are getting downright ridiculous.

King, I must say this is the funniest post I've ever seen you write.

The reason you cannot drive naked is the same reason you cannot stand inside your house with the blinds drawn open, naked. It has to do with expectation of privacy. You have no expectation of privacy in your home when the window blinds are open. Anything illegal observed from a officers legal vantage point seen inside your home is fair game. Hell, he can even break down your door without a search warrant if he has "reasonable suspicion" that the evidence of a crime will be destroyed before a warrant can be obtained. Now, if you had some type of curtains on your car windows, you could get as busy as you want, as long as your not parking in a location that there could be a question of your having the right to be there at the time your there. Maybe you should have invested in a VAN with a peace sign painted on the side.

As far as DNA testing, I'm all for it, AS long as the officer is within his rights to request a collection. That means you just cannot go around plucking hairs or taking swabs out of peoples mouths just in hopes to find a criminal doing some crime somewhere that DNA was collected. As far as convicted felons giving DNA, I'm all for it, cause I feel that you have been convicted of a felony and you don't even have the right to vote, and you've proven that you are capable and in need of being monitered.

Your right that there is no difference between collecting DNA or blood. But, there is still the same due dilligence on the officers part to provide a reasonable suspicion, through legal means, as not to disturb the civil rights of other citizens during the collection of such evidence. (I.E. Long lines in checkpoints, preventing people from freely moving about this vast country uninhibited.

 

[theplummer]

My dad was killed by a drunk driver with four prior DWI convictions. His license wasn't even suspended. He was driving on a valid driver's license. I kinda wish "they" would have infringed a little more on that drunk driver's rights before he had the chance to do it again and again and again and ultimately kill an innocent, wonderful, loving man. . . I hardly think a fine and an order to attend SATOP did much to convince this particular drunk driver that driving while intoxicated was not a "right" he had. I can't help but think that maybe if they would have put the guy in prison where his "rights" were taken away or maybe even taken away his "right" to own a car or infringed on his "rights" by putting a box in his car to monitor his driving or done something that made a lasting impression on him while taking away some of his "rights" that my Dad might still be with us today. It is unfathomable to me to think that anyone thinks drinking and driving is a "right" that should be protected. The drunk who killed my dad lost absolutely nothing but a couple of hours of his time telling a judge why he thought he could be "rehabilitated" on his own. He was allowed that "right" even after killing someone and today he walks around whole while our family was left with a gaping hole in our "rights:".

I applaud St. Charles for taking this kind of action. I sincerely hope they are able to actually prosecute some of these idiots who believe that drinking and driving is a right!

I really feel terrible for your loss. I know this can be a very sensitive subject and must be difficult to accept many of my words.

But please understand that the constitution did not fail you or your family. The distorted court system did. I'm sure the officer that investigated and developed the case wanted nothing more than for your fathers Killer to spend nearly an eternity in prison paying for his crime. I know I used to. I place you in the same place in my heart as I do Nicole Brown Simpson's family. Think about that injustice. Rest assured that we (our society) is well meaning, but we are human. There is a place that the person that hurt your family will be shown how wrong his actions were.

I pray that your pain is eased quickly. Best of luck.

 

[theplummer]

So what about gathering hair folicles for dna evidence. What is the difference between having a piece of hair removed and drawing blood for evidence? Have you ever yelled about a dna test infringing upon your rights. Why not? What about court ordered paternity testing? Have you preached against that anywhere recently? What about fingerprinting? Have you ever defended the right not to be fingerprinted when someone is arrested? You have no right to accuse me of tunnelvision unless you can answer yes to any of those questions. There is absolutely no difference.

king

The dna question has been answered. Court ordered paternity testing is only performed when a potential father has been satisfactorily been determined to be a possibility. What ****s about that point is, if your wife decided to mess around on you and she got pregnant and you proved paternity to not be yours, guess what, you still get to pay child support on that child if you divorce her for that action.

I always pondered the fingerprinting issue. But, I've come to rest that I'm ok with that one because it's mainly used as a affirmitive means of identification. How many times have people claimed to be someone else and the ultimate clarification is a fingerprint. I know about three sets of twins that have tried to claim one was the other during arrest. The neat thing about that is once that's done, they get each others aliases, and they essentially tie themselves to each other even closer.

 

[theplummer]

So does that mean you are against court ordered (urinalysis) drug testing for those released on conditional parole? Thats a fluid from inside your body, and it is yours alone. Did you protest that? Or is pee something that your gonna tell me you don't care about either because it fits your arguement? What about your breathe for a breathalyzer? That comes from inside your body..Did you protest that? Or does that not matter either because it bastardizes your theory?

If a urinalysis is part of the condition of your parole, and you think it's unconstitutional, you can chose not to accept the parole and stay in prison.

Breath for a breathalyzer is fine once probable cause is established through legal means. Again it's a choice, no one can force you to give a sample through a certified, court approved, measurement device. There are some stupid flashlights that can detect ambiant air to see if alcohol is present, but how accurate are they, not very, especially when they are just collecting air from around an area, not from a specific suspect. That's why a court won't even allow a officer to mention that he had one and was using one during the initial stop.

 

[Phoenix 2]

T.Nie,

Correct.

If a person is caught in the act of commiting an offense, then the collection of evidence or information relating to the that offense would not be considered improper.

But to forcefully and without permission drain the blood from your body in hopes of finding some evidence would be improper.


And for all you children out there, get your spell checkers ready

 

[t.nie]

T.Nie,

Correct.

If a person is caught in the act of commiting an offense, then the collection of evidence or information relating to the that offense would not be considered improper.

But to forcefully and without permission drain the blood from your body in hopes of finding some evidence would be improper.


And for all you children out there, get your spell checkers ready

Ok, then I'm not sure why you would object to police officers at DWI checkpoints taking blood from people who refuse to blow. They first look at your eyes for the tell tale signs that you are over the limit. If you are glassy eyed, eyeballs bouncing, that is enough to take you from reasonable suspicion to probable cause. Those visual cues have been tried and tested in court in the past as enough to get you out of the car or ask you to blow. Those are physical signs of intoxication that are not in question. Next time you have the opportunity, ask a police officer about the eyeballs bouncing thing. It's a dead giveaway you're drunk, and police officers are trained to spot it. Believe it or not, they get people to volunteer to get loaded at the academy just so they can demonstrate on someone who is drunk how the eyes react when a person is intoxicated. Dead giveaway. You cannot control it. Now, just because someone isn't displaying the eyeballs bouncing thing does not mean they are not over the limit. But anyone who does is definitely over. No question about it.

From there, it's either blow, or get your blood drawn with a warrant. Your choice. But the police don't just grab everyone and take blood just to see if you've been drinking. So I guess it's more of a misrepresentation of the actual steps taken to determine if you are drunk or not when you are stopped at a checkpoint. Because the police are just not going to waste their time, energy and manhours randomly drawing blood "just to see" if you have been drinking. By the time it gets to that point, they have plenty of other physical cues to lead them to that conclusion. All they have to do is talk to you for thirty seconds, shine a flashlight in your face so it hits your eyes, and they will have a pretty good idea whether or not it's worth their time getting you out of the car or sending you on your way.

There's a lot more to it than just stopping people and demanding blood. It doesn't work that way at all. And if it does come to them getting you out of your car and asking you to blow, then you have presented enough cues for them to have probable cause to think you have committed the crime of driving while intoxicated. In your words, you have been "caught in the act of committing an offense." If you aren't showing any tell tale signs of being intoxicated, you are free to go. Just like getting searched at the airport.

 

[Phoenix 2]

T.Nie:

The key word would have to be YET, because once this becomes the norm, then its on to the next thing that Govt might feel it needs to crack down on.

Surly you can connect the dots.

Thats why a look back at history is so important.

 

[kingeddy]

Can you say Paranoid Schizophrenia?

How about a relevant example as to what has ever happenend time and time again in a democracy?

 

[kingeddy]

The reason you cannot drive naked is the same reason you cannot stand inside your house with the blinds drawn open, naked. It has to do with expectation of privacy.

Exactly 100% correct. And cars are not equipped with blinds nor are they assumed to be a private dwelling. So you cannot ever expect the same amount of privacy in your car as you do at home. POINT PROVEN! And I must say this was the most ignorant post you've ever made, because you just contradicted yourself.

 

[Phoenix 2]

Storeroom and Midget Racer

Thanks for grading my work, you point out that I missed 3 out of over 150 words thats a 98% and might be the highest score I have ever received on a spelling test.

You know some of those trees are kinda ugly, but all together they do make a pretty forrest. You guys should take a look sometime.

 

[kingeddy]

Court ordered paternity testing is only performed when a potential father has been satisfactorily been determined to be a possibility.

And a judge ordered blood draw has only been ordered when a potential drunk driver has been satisfactorily identified after refusing to blow?

SO WHATS THE FRIGGIN DIFFERENCE?

PLEASE ANSWER ME, WHAT IN THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE?

 

[kingeddy]

The issue is NOT a dwi checkpoint, the issue IS the invasive taking of your blood by a govt. that has already shown a pattern of blatantly and repeatedly violating your constitutional rights..

Please, I beg of you...I plead with you....

Name ten constitutional rights (in the last 60 years) that the government has blatantly and repeatedly voilated. I want 10 of them all named, all detailed with your explanation of how they were violated. Are you up for the challenge, or are you just all talk and no substance? I'll bet on the later.

 

[kingeddy]

if a urinalysis is part of the condition of your parole, and you think it's unconstitutional, you can chose not to accept the parole and stay in prison.

and you can also choose to blow or not to blow. Either way, if your drunk, your going to jail. If you pee dirty, your going back to jail..... Where is the injustice, or infringement of rights?

What is so hard to understand about this?

 

[wheel spinner]

But I no longer need a blood test to prove I can drive

I'm sorry but you will more likely prove more often that you can drive. With prior convictions your record will show up every time a cop runs your tag. And some cars have cameras tied to computers that run every tag they see. When your record shows up it's saying an investigatory stop is in order. As it should be. You have lost your right to be free of unreasonable search. I bet you will always get the full exam at a checkpoint. I do applaud you for sharing your experience.

DieHardDirtFan, I am sorry to hear of your loss. It makes me angry. Not just at the drunk driver but even more at the judge or in this case judges that let him go. I am angry at the attorneys that took money to get these people off. I'm angry at our representatives that leave these loopholes in the law so attorneys buy their clients out of trouble. I'm angry at cops that will give friends or people of influence a ride home while arranging a tow for their vehicle stuck in a ditch. I'm angry at the system that allows attorneys to charge large amounts of money so they can pay judges to get punishment reduced. The system that sometimes punishes the repeat stumbling drunk accident causer less than a first time .o8 blowing victim of a fishing exhibition.
I believe that the punishment for first time .08 offenders is too harsh and punishment for repeat or slurring, stumbling or erratic driving offenders is not harsh enough. The punishment for slurring and stumbling or erratic driving should be so severe that people would want to blow or have blood drawn. But then how would lawyers make their money?

Some related links:

http://www.pulledover.com/Missouri-DWI-News/Missouri-DWI-News.html

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...93F1FC2F65654DB88625759C000E1F33?OpenDocument

http://www.bnd.com/homepage/story/726566.html