Police State: Not Where You Expect: Texas

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I am thinking they are probably going to use something like what people with diabetes use where it just pricks your finger..

I agree, a simple finger ####### in not seen as harmful by the state. Hundreds of thousands of diabetics do this many times a day with no harm. It would be very hard indeed to show, in court, how this is harmful.

Anyway, in Iowa if you refuse to blow in the tester or have your blood checked you lose your license. Period! End of Story!!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I agree, a simple finger ####### in not seen as harmful by the state. Hundreds of thousands of diabetics do this many times a day with no harm. It would be very hard indeed to show, in court, how this is harmful.

Anyway, in Iowa if you refuse to blow in the tester or have your blood checked you lose your license. Period! End of Story!!

apparently the 4th and 5th amendment mean nothing to them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

apparently the 4th and 5th amendment mean nothing to them.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this hasn't it?

Yep - in Washington at any rate.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

apparently the 4th and 5th amendment mean nothing to them.

driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. while you don't have to submit to the testing, the drawback is loss of that privilege.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. while you don't have to submit to the testing, the drawback is loss of that privilege.

just because something is a privilege doesn't mean that the 4th and 5th amendments can be violated as a requirement to continue operation.

You are innocent until proven guilty the last time I checked. Also the last time I checked you do not have to self-incriminate yourself either. It's up to a judge and jury to decide your fate, not the strong arm of the law.

Forcing someone to give blood, especially by court order without arrest is a blatant violation of ones rights.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

just because something is a privilege doesn't mean that the 4th and 5th amendments can be violated as a requirement to continue operation.

You are innocent until proven guilty the last time I checked. Also the last time I checked you do not have to self-incriminate yourself either. It's up to a judge and jury to decide your fate, not the strong arm of the law.

Forcing someone to give blood, especially by court order without arrest is a blatant violation of ones rights.

then don't drive and there's no problem.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

then don't drive and there's no problem.

you have got to be kidding me?

So if you don't do X, then you don't have to worry about your constitutional rights being violated? Get fvcking real.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

you have got to be kidding me?

So if you don't do X, then you don't have to worry about your constitutional rights being violated? Get fvcking real.

again, the constitution does not guarantee your right to drive a car.

btw, i remember these sort of checkpoints in texas before you was even born. it's not news that they are occurring.

Edited July 9, 2010 by charles!

[PhiLandShiR 18]

apparently the 4th and 5th amendment mean nothing to them.

Interesting thought...

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Nothing being violated here... no property is being seized, you don't own the drivers license any more than you own your Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7. You did not buy the code, only permission to use it. And as far as the drivers license is concerned, you have the choice to not drive. No one forces anyone to take the breath test or blood test. Its always the states choice to issue or not issue a license...

As far as the 5th...

'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.'

Again, nothing is being violated here.

No one forces you to take the breath test or the blood test. Its your choice.

We are dealing with privileges here, not rights. That is the difference.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Interesting thought...

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Nothing being violated here... no property is being seized, you don't own the drivers license any more than you own your Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7. You did not buy the code, only permission to use it. And as far as the drivers license is concerned, you have the choice to not drive. No one forces anyone to take the breath test or blood test. Its always the states choice to issue or not issue a license...

As far as the 5th...

'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.'

Again, nothing is being violated here.

No one forces you to take the breath test or the blood test. Its your choice.

We are dealing with privileges here, not rights. That is the difference.

You're missing the point. You cannot refuse the blood test. They will get a warrant and they will extract it from you. In a very technical and real sense, your blood is your property and a part of you, that one cannot deny from you.

While driving a car may be a privedlege, at the same time that does not give them the right to do random blood tests on you. We're not talking about searching a car, we're not talking about searching a home, we're not talking about searching anything on your person, we're talking about searching something inside of your body. --- Under this logic, Roe v. Wade is completely moot and the government can indeed tell you that you cannot have an abortion if you get pregnant. Under this logic, it's ok for the government to walk into a bar and give random blood tests to check your BAC while you're in there. Under this logic, it's ok for you to be walking down the street, an officer smell alcohol and to give a blood test to you. --- There are a lot more doors to open up here and all it takes is a foot in the door.

Breathalyzers are one thing, field soberiety tests are one thing, physically extracting DNA from an individual by force is a complete other thing entirely.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yes the blood test goes to far, but what do you expect when they've already practically killed the 4th already. I thought the Chief Justice's opinion was crazy when they first ruled that checkpoints were constitutional. He basically said that they violate the 4th amendment but it was necessary to end the "bloodshed on our highways". That excuse could be used for any law.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You're missing the point. You cannot refuse the blood test. They will get a warrant and they will extract it from you. In a very technical and real sense, your blood is your property and a part of you, that one cannot deny from you.

While driving a car may be a privedlege, at the same time that does not give them the right to do random blood tests on you. We're not talking about searching a car, we're not talking about searching a home, we're not talking about searching anything on your person, we're talking about searching something inside of your body. --- Under this logic, Roe v. Wade is completely moot and the government can indeed tell you that you cannot have an abortion if you get pregnant. Under this logic, it's ok for the government to walk into a bar and give random blood tests to check your BAC while you're in there. Under this logic, it's ok for you to be walking down the street, an officer smell alcohol and to give a blood test to you. --- There are a lot more doors to open up here and all it takes is a foot in the door.

Breathalyzers are one thing, field soberiety tests are one thing, physically extracting DNA from an individual by force is a complete other thing entirely.

Did you know that in Texas cops have actually entered bars, checked peoples BAC. and then arrested them for "Public Intoxication"?

I kid you not!!!!!!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Did you know that in Texas cops have actually entered bars, checked peoples BAC. and then arrested them for "Public Intoxication"?

I kid you not!!!!!!

TABC can go in and arrest people for PI if it's blatantly obvious and have them breathe into a breathalyzer (which they can refuse), but as far as I know, I have not heard of them doing blood tests, which they should not be able to do.

The main thing that TABC does/has the authority to do is go in and make sure everyone who is in a bar drinking, has their ID on their person and the bar is checking IDs. Raids are rare unelsss there have been repeated problems from a certain establishment. Usually they do undercover work to test bartenders and will fine/arrest them on the spot if they do not check for IDs, which can also cause the establishment to lose their license if the individual is not TABC certified.....

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

TABC can go in and arrest people for PI if it's blatantly obvious and have them breathe into a breathalyzer (which they can refuse), but as far as I know, I have not heard of them doing blood tests, which they should not be able to do.

The main thing that TABC does/has the authority to do is go in and make sure everyone who is in a bar drinking, has their ID on their person and the bar is checking IDs. Raids are rare unelsss there have been repeated problems from a certain establishment. Usually they do undercover work to test bartenders and will fine/arrest them on the spot if they do not check for IDs, which can also cause the establishment to lose their license if the individual is not TABC certified.....

"Blatantly obvious".....I've heard they've cleared out full bars...

[Obama 2012 1,714]

"Blatantly obvious".....I've heard they've cleared out full bars...

as with any agency with authority, there's the bad apples who overstep their abilities. Of course, this is when cases get thrown out of court really quick.