• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

'No Refusal' Weekend Program To Exist Year-Round

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
I'm not sure what to think about this , I seen a similiar article like this about florida as well . I dont beleive in driving under the influence BUT this seems to be a bit much to me . Any thoughts ? :unsure:

I added the Florida article & link below . This is the part that concerns me .


" Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.
It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test. "

http://www.ksat.com/news/26315388/detail.html

Drivers Who Refuse Breath Tests Will Have Blood Drawn

Charles Gonzalez, KSAT 12 News Reporter

POSTED: Wednesday, December 29, 2010




SAN ANTONIO -- Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed announced plans this week to extend "No Refusal" weekends to every weekend in 2011 as opposed to certain holiday weekends, like New Year's and the Fourth of July.
The move to extend the program drew positive words from Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
Watch Charles Gonzalez's Report | Web Poll

"We're pretty excited about that," said Daniel Garza, youth program specialist with MADD. "It was a great pleasure to hear that this morning that law enforcement is going to get another good tool to be able to combat drunk driving here in San Antonio."
With an estimated 6,000 drunken driving arrests in Bexar county for 2010, MADD feels the program will cut down on arrests in 2011.
"When they're announced and everyone knows that they're coming, they serve as a deterrent," Garza said. "It would be a great pleasure to see it become 365 days."
But criminal lawyers who handle DWI cases see it differently.
"I guess the message they're sending is, 'Get drunk during the week,'" said Jamie Balagia, a lawyer who goes by "DWI Dude".
"They're saying, 'You give us a breath specimen or you give us a blood specimen or we're going to take it anyway,'" George Scharmen, a criminal defense lawyer.
Scharmen said with the district attorney's refusal to take plea bargains in DWI cases, the new policy won't do anything but stretch out cases. He said he has some cases that have waited five years to get to court.
"You have motions to suppress breath and blood draws on the basis of a bad search warrant, on the basis of involuntariness," Scharmen said.
"If they don't have enough evidence against you to make a solid case, how is what little they have enough for a judge to sign a warrant?" added Balagia.
Reed's office released statistics from nine No Refusal weekends between May 2008 and the Fourth of July weekend in 2010. The stats showed that 312 blood tests were taken with an average blood alcohol level of 0.159, nearly twice the legal limit. Twenty-nine of the tests were below the legal limit.
"If you have a special program, there should be a goal and a goal that you can actually show statistically that there's benefit," Balagia said. "Susan Reed can't do that."
"The implication is that on the No Refusal weekend they have a tendency to get more convictions or they have a tendency to get better evidence," Scharmen said.




"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa



http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250



Tampa, Florida-- With New Year's Eve only days away, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects this to be one of the deadliest weeks of the year on the roads.
But now a new weapon is being used in the fight against drunk driving.
It's a change that could make you more likely to be convicted.
"I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.
Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.
It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.
It's already being done in several counties, and now Unfried is working to bring it to the Tampa Bay area.
"I think you'll see the difference because people will not drink and drive. I truly believe that," she said.
Not everyone is on board, though.
DUI defense attorney Kevin Hayslett sees the mandatory blood test as a violation of constitutional rights.
"It's a slippery slope and it's got to stop somewhere," Hayslett explained, "what other misdemeanor offense do we have in the United States where the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?"
The federal government says Florida has among the highest rates of breathalyzer refusal.
"Now you've got attorneys telling their clients, don't blow, don't blow! Because we know from the results from these machines that they're not operating as the state or the government says they're supposed to operate," said Stephen Daniels, a DUI consultant and expert witness.
Supporters, though, say you could see the "no refusal" checkpoints in the Bay area by October.
"We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.
She adds that this type of checkpoint would be heavily advertised, with the goal of deterring any drunk driving.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently said he wants to see more states hold similar programs.
 
Last edited:

DaveNay

Klaatu barada nikto
SUPER Site Supporter
I don't think this policy will be able to last very long until it is challenged. I would think that similar to how you can't be compelled to give a DNA sample without a court order, you can't be compelled to give a blood sample without a court order.

I believe this will fall under fifth amendment rights somewhere.
 

DaveNay

Klaatu barada nikto
SUPER Site Supporter
We have had this in IL too. The reason they are doing this is because chronic DUI'ers will refuse to give the breath test which means they get a $500 ticket. But the $500 ticket is better than a third or fourth DUI they avoid by not giving evidence.
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
I don't think this policy will be able to last very long until it is challenged. I would think that similar to how you can't be compelled to give a DNA sample without a court order, you can't be compelled to give a blood sample without a court order.

I believe this will fall under fifth amendment rights somewhere.


Sorry Dave I was editing my post I'm not sure if you seen this Quote from the florida article .

" " Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.
It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test. "
 

DaveNay

Klaatu barada nikto
SUPER Site Supporter
Sorry Dave I was editing my post I'm not sure if you seen this Quote from the florida article .

" " Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.
It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test. "

IF a judge is on site and IF a public defender is also on site, and IF they perform all the proper paperwork and IF it is simply not a "DUI mill" and IF they follow the letter and "spirit" of the law, then I really have no problem with it.
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
IF a judge is on site and IF a public defender is also on site, and IF they perform all the proper paperwork and IF it is simply not a "DUI mill" and IF they follow the letter and "spirit" of the law, then I really have no problem with it.
I agree but thats a lot of Ifs , I find it hard to beleive there would be enough money in any city budget to provide all of that for each checkpoint . :wink:
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
At some point this will have to be challenged. I see no way that forcing people to undergo blood tests against their will while traveling can not be seen as an excessive invasion of privacy.

These low-end traffic judges are nothing more than cops in robes (granted they aren't really in robes). I think it would seem a little too one-sided to have a judge on site whose sole purpose is to issue warrants for the police. Seems to lack a crucial element of impartiality.
 

SShepherd

New member
it seems to me that they are presuming everyone is guilty untill proven innocent with these tactics. Seems it also violates search and seizure laws, in that they have no probable cause other than you are driving which is legal.
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
They should just handle it like Ohio, where the penalties for a breathalyzer refusal are nearly as stringent as those for a DUI.

I can't imagine that the onsite magistrate rubber stamping search warrants will pass constitutional muster.
 

Adillo303

Diesel Truck Fan
GOLD Site Supporter
Other side of the coin, about 20,000 are killed every year by drunk drivers. Not much can be done to defend their right of life liberty and pursuit of happiness after they are dead.

Of course, they are not able to work,pay taxes, and spend their salary any more either, so they are of little use to the pols.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
IF a judge is on site and IF a public defender is also on site, and IF they perform all the proper paperwork and IF it is simply not a "DUI mill" and IF they follow the letter and "spirit" of the law, then I really have no problem with it.
No Public Defender is required for a warrant to be issued. The police must convince the judge they have a legitimate reason for wanting the warrant. That is the sole criteria.
In SC, refusal to submit to a breathalyzer or a blood test(which you have to request) is admission of DUI. Courts uphold it, too.
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
No Public Defender is required for a warrant to be issued. The police must convince the judge they have a legitimate reason for wanting the warrant. That is the sole criteria.
In SC, refusal to submit to a breathalyzer or a blood test(which you have to request) is admission of DUI. Courts uphold it, too.

You sure about this, LL?
 

JEV

Mr. Congeniality
GOLD Site Supporter
Soooooo, who's paying for a judge to be sitting at these checkpoints, and who's paying for medical/EMT personnel to draw blood in a safe manner? Are the judges buying into this? Are there enough judges with nothing to do that they can staff all of these checkpoints? How many checkpoints will there be? Is this a city, county or state police function?Lots of questions to be asked. Are there Obama Dollars involved to pay for this?

Personally, I think anyone driving under the influence should get whatever they deserve. I just have a hard time seeing how this is all going to come together in significant enough number to make a difference, especially with budget constraints at all levels of gumbit within a state. Sounds like another nice touchy-feely program to win points from special interest groups.
 

SShepherd

New member
No Public Defender is required for a warrant to be issued. The police must convince the judge they have a legitimate reason for wanting the warrant. That is the sole criteria.
In SC, refusal to submit to a breathalyzer or a blood test(which you have to request) is admission of DUI. Courts uphold it, too.

uh, that would violate the 5th.

Here, refusal for a PBT sends a call to the judge for a search warrant to draw blood.
I have a problem with the idea of a checkpoint.
They have no reason or probable cause to "check " you, then if you refuse the test ( self incrimination) following that search they get a search warrant?
sounds like a house of cards.
 

JEV

Mr. Congeniality
GOLD Site Supporter
uh, that would violate the 5th.

Here, refusal for a PBT sends a call to the judge for a search warrant to draw blood.
I have a problem with the idea of a checkpoint.
They have no reason or probable cause to "check " you, then if you refuse the test ( self incrimination) following that search they get a search warrant?
sounds like a house of cards.
Probably drawn up by the same political architect who does Obama's projects. Designed like a sieve.
 

SShepherd

New member
http://www.dupagecountycriminallaw....-No-Refusal-Weekend-Challenged-in-Court.shtml

A Libertyville woman is challenging the constitutionality of the DUI enforcement tactic known as "no-refusal weekend." The police practice tramples on the civil rights of defendants, critics say.
The Chicago Tribune reports that Libertyville resident Cheryl Yachnin was held for 13 hours after being charged with DUI and then refusing to take a breathalyzer test or give a blood sample to police officers.
Refusing to Take a Refusal

A "no-refusal weekend" is when police officers refuse to accept "no" as an answer from DUI suspects. Officers on these weekends can request search warrants from prosecutors and judges to compel DUI suspects to give a blood sample if they refuse a breath test. If the drivers refuse to comply with the request for blood, as Yachnin did, the driver is charged with contempt of court.
According to Yachnin's lawsuit, in August of 2008, she was pulled over and arrested for drunken driving. After a field sobriety test was administered, a Lake County prosecutor was contacted. The prosecutor got a county judge to issue a search warrant demanding Yachnin submit to a breath test or blood test. She refused both.
Yachnin was later found not guilty of DUI; contempt of court charges against her were dismissed.

Does Illinois Law Allow "No Refusal" Weekends?

Yachnin's lawyer says there is no state law allowing prosecutors or police officers to declare no-refusal weekends. The attorney argues that state's attorneys and police departments have decided on their own to create law enforced only on special weekends.
The no-refusal weekends have taken place irregularly in Lake County as well as in Kane County since 2008. The weekends are typically at holidays when impaired driving violations are often higher than normal.

this is probably their attempt to get rid of that arguement
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
IF a judge is on site and IF a public defender is also on site, and IF they perform all the proper paperwork and IF it is simply not a "DUI mill" and IF they follow the letter and "spirit" of the law, then I really have no problem with it.

I have a problem with it. Like Shep said, everyone is presumed guilty until they take a breathalizer.

it seems to me that they are presuming everyone is guilty untill proven innocent with these tactics. Seems it also violates search and seizure laws, in that they have no probable cause other than you are driving which is legal.

I have a huge problem with folks who are driving under the influence. My best friend in HS was killed by a drunk driver. I want them off the road and will report anyone driving erratically, and hope others would do the same. I do not wish to be stopped and interrogated for simply driving down the wrong road (the one with the check point). Sure they publish / announce when and where they are doing these check points. What does that accomplish? It allows those who regularly drink and drive to avoid the freaking stops. Those like me who are not watching for that kind of stuff in the newspaper get stopped and inconvenienced for no good reason. I do not believe all the numbers they put up in support of these checkpoints as truly saving life's. No way they can know this. We know how accurate the government is with predicting things. They have a worse track record than the local fortune teller.

Little by little we give up our freedoms. Next they'll be going house to house searching for illegal weapons. This crap needs to stop now. It is already out of hand.
 

SShepherd

New member
No Public Defender is required for a warrant to be issued. The police must convince the judge they have a legitimate reason for wanting the warrant. That is the sole criteria.
In SC, refusal to submit to a breathalyzer or a blood test(which you have to request) is admission of DUI. Courts uphold it, too.
I'm not sure a DWI would stick without evidence, the most they could do is contempt of court.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
I'm not sure a DWI would stick without evidence, the most they could do is contempt of court.
Actually, the law is written, and has been for years, that if you refuse a breathalyzer or blood test, you have admitted(made a confession) guilt. This stands up here. Course, they have a tendency to put folks in jail down here pretty quick too.
The Highway Patrol and most City police departments are pretty good about informing you of the consequences of not taking the tests here.
Like I said, we have people currently serving DUI convictions here that refused to take the tests, and found themselves having admitted to DUI.
I don't really see this as a civil rights issue. You have to agree to abide by the law before you drive a vehicle. By refusing to abide by the law or reasonable requests of law enforcement you have lost the 'privilege' of driving.
 

muleman

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
IF you drive impaired you deserve to get stopped. That said, checkpoints are a major trashing of our rights. If I operate a motor vehicle within the law they have no reason to be checking me for anything just because I am on that road. They run them up here all the time for seatbelts and plates,inspection or anything they can see.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
Are the judges buying into this? Are there enough judges with nothing to do that they can staff all of these checkpoints?
There are tons of shitty lawyers that want cushy "judge" jobs. They usually are lazy left leaning politician brown-nosing scum too. Just my opinion.

Don't think that a really good lawyer or judge is going to sign up for this job unless they are some form of anti-drunk driving crusader (which also means they are not un-biased).
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
Actually, the law is written, and has been for years, that if you refuse a breathalyzer or blood test, you have admitted(made a confession) guilt. This stands up here. Course, they have a tendency to put folks in jail down here pretty quick too.
The Highway Patrol and most City police departments are pretty good about informing you of the consequences of not taking the tests here.
Like I said, we have people currently serving DUI convictions here that refused to take the tests, and found themselves having admitted to DUI.
I don't really see this as a civil rights issue. You have to agree to abide by the law before you drive a vehicle. By refusing to abide by the law or reasonable requests of law enforcement you have lost the 'privilege' of driving.


Thats the same way it works here too lobo . However their are 2 specialist DUI attorneys that are know for telling everyone to refuse the tests & they perty much guarantee you they can get you off for the right money . The cheapest I,ve heard of from an old friend of mine is 10 grand & the guy never even had to show up for court , That was a few years ago and the 5th DUI the guy got him out of .

Just proves the system still dont work like it should, IMO :hammer:
 

loboloco

Well-known member
Thats the same way it works here too lobo . However their are 2 specialist DUI attorneys that are know for telling everyone to refuse the tests & they perty much guarantee you they can get you off for the right money . The cheapest I,ve heard of from an old friend of mine is 10 grand & the guy never even had to show up for court , That was a few years ago and the 5th DUI the guy got him out of .

Just proves the system still dont work like it should, IMO :hammer:
We had some try that here. SCOSC heard a case abt 4 yrs back trying to get the lawyer and client both out of jail. They returned the case and recommended harsher sentencing.
 

SShepherd

New member
Actually, the law is written, and has been for years, that if you refuse a breathalyzer or blood test, you have admitted(made a confession) guilt. This stands up here. Course, they have a tendency to put folks in jail down here pretty quick too.
The Highway Patrol and most City police departments are pretty good about informing you of the consequences of not taking the tests here.
Like I said, we have people currently serving DUI convictions here that refused to take the tests, and found themselves having admitted to DUI.
I don't really see this as a civil rights issue. You have to agree to abide by the law before you drive a vehicle. By refusing to abide by the law or reasonable requests of law enforcement you have lost the 'privilege' of driving.
heh, doesn't work like that from my expierence here
 
Top