Collin County To Launch DWI Blood Testing

I just saw your post Bud. There is a lag on this site I do believe, before posts show up.

No need to apologize, we all read things funny sometimes.

I'm right with you Ginger. Apology excepted as you excepted mine thank you.

Bud wrote:

I got what you said Ginger and you were probably typing as I was saying Sorry to you. The same as I was Typing before I read it all on my first post. I still stand behind my comment of finding a Judge at 2:00 AM for a warrant.

Bud,

Dallas has, on more than a few occasions, performed drunk driving stings by waiting around the most popular watering holes during the most well known drinking holidays...which lets face it, thats pretty much every holiday. They almost always have a mobile drunk tank, and have a judge on video conference the entire time. They haul you to the mobile drunk tank and do the deed right there. I think Fort Worth has done it a few times also.

Used to be, you could just refuse the breath test and by the time the next morning came along and the judge could issue warrant, you were sober and just lost your license a few months, which is why they have the mobile drunk tank now.

I'm not advocating drunk driving by any means, but they're working the system the best way the know how to "keep the streets safe"...and make a nice little revenue off of it too.

Give cops a few years and their limited IQ does eventually catch up.

Anon,
Not being argumentative, but if they stopped me and this is the way the got their warrant it would be fought and thrown out.

Bud wrote:

I got what you said Ginger and you were probably typing as I was saying Sorry to you. The same as I was Typing before I read it all on my first post. I still stand behind my comment of finding a Judge at 2:00 AM for a warrant.

There are judges on call specifically for reviewing the requests for these types of warrants.

Swatcop, I am well aware of what is suppose to be, I am X-Cop and know the system. Also know what reality is. The judicial system stinks.

Ginger wrote:

I can tell you the facts of life without looking at your links. Thanks anyway.
You can take public transportation. You can even live NEAR public transportation. Many people do this, you can too!
You say, "What a stupid argument" - LOL - that's the real world, dear. I hope you can cope.
And remember the next time you get in your car, you might have to give a blood sample against your will. Don't forget, okay?

Hey Stupid: I don't drink and drive. That is the whole purpose. I don't want some cop having the authority to strap me down and take my blood because maybe he doesn't like the way I look or something. It amazes me that we are not speaking Irani (farsi) with people like you voting.

Bud wrote:

Anon,
Not being argumentative, but if they stopped me and this is the way the got their warrant it would be fought and thrown out.

I know. I'm just sayin, they'll try to find any sneaky way to get things done while giving you little room to have any rights. Driving while intoxicated or not, its still innocent until proven guilty. This process assumes guilt and goes right to the sentence. This starts with DWI, before you know it, they'll be using shady tactics for just about any infraction.

Anon E Mouse wrote:

<quoted text>
I know. I'm just sayin, they'll try to find any sneaky way to get things done while giving you little room to have any rights. Driving while intoxicated or not, its still innocent until proven guilty. This process assumes guilt and goes right to the sentence. This starts with DWI, before you know it, they'll be using shady tactics for just about any infraction.

Actually its based on reliable and standardized field sobriety tests along with an experienced police officers observations which leads to their probable cause. Probable cause is all the officer needs to get the warrant. I don't know about you, but if I was accused of something I know i didn't do and giving a breath or blood specimen would prove my innocence then I would give it volunarily. After all, I agreed to my consent when I signed for my drivers license.

This is violation of human rights. The legal system is intruding more and more into our rights as citizens making up ways to justify there actions claiming it helps the community but it only helps there employee pocket book. The legal system says it wants to save money, but we do have the right to a trial. If they were concerned about safety they could stand out side of bars and clubs to observe for intoxicated people and arrest them for Public Intox, before getting into a car and hurting someone severely. However more money is made with DWI. The legal system wants money, they should rather think of to prevent DWI from occurring, but that would put many out of a job. GOD BLESS AMERICA

Maybe this will help some of you understand why legislature is so tough on DWI’s.

Fact: In 2006, the rate of alcohol impairment among drivers involved in fatal crashes was four times higher at night than during the day (36% versus 9%)

Fact: In 2006, an estimated 17,602 people died in alcohol-related traffic crashes—an average of one every 30 minutes. These deaths constitute 41 percent of the 42,642 total traffic fatalities. Of these, an estimated 13,470 involved a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). On average someone is killed by a drunk driver every 39 minutes.

Fact: Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public an estimated $114.3 billion in 2000, including $51.1 billion in monetary costs and an estimated $63.2 billion in quality of life losses. People other than the drinking driver paid $71.6 billion of the alcohol-related crash bill, which is 63 percent of the total cost of these crashes.

Fact: Since 1980 (the year Mothers Against Drunk Driving was founded), alcohol-related traffic fatalities have decreased by about 44 percent, from over 30,000 to under 17,000 and MADD has helped save over 300,000 lives.

The MADD Victims Tribute is dedicated to the memory of James David Shaver of Houston, Texas and the University of Texas at Austin. James died in a drunk driving crash in 1971 after attending a summer fraternity party.

"When I was in my 20's, I thought Jimmy had merely been unlucky, which he was. When I was in my 30's, I thought Jimmy had been foolish to drive after drinking, which he was.
But when I was in my 40's, I realized that Jimmy had been misled by all of us -- the alcohol industry, the fraternity culture, and we, his friends -- to think that being young and having fun means drinking alcohol.
I miss you, Jimmy."

-William DeJong, Harvard School of Public Health
MADD Board of Directors, 1993-1996

Fact: About three in every ten Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives.

http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Drivi...

To everyone on this thread crying about their human rights, what about the rights of people NOT breaking the law to drive home from the grocery or wherever without being slammed into by a drunk driver?

And as far as driving being a right, or being necessary? It's not a right, so if you don't want to be "strapped down" because you have some wildly irrational fear of the cops then suck it up and buy a bicycle.

OHagan 200 wrote:

To everyone on this thread crying about their human rights, what about the rights of people NOT breaking the law to drive home from the grocery or wherever without being slammed into by a drunk driver?
And as far as driving being a right, or being necessary? It's not a right, so if you don't want to be "strapped down" because you have some wildly irrational fear of the cops then suck it up and buy a bicycle.

Oh you can be charged with DWI on a bicycle also. Maybe you don't understand, what about the rights of the person that gets straped down just because the cop is a jerk, maybe he wasn't even drunk. It does happen. Maybe not in this perfect fantasy world you live in, but in the real world, it does.
As far as those being slammed into by a drunk driver, maybe you should write your congressman for law changes, because even though they have the tools to lock people up now, they are walking out of court with nothing. It is usually a teen kid or someone that is a habitual drunk driver that does the killing.

I personally don't like giving anyone a right to strap me down. But you socialist idiots do. You will probably be voing for Osama. He thinks like you do.

Why the name-calling, Eric?

I believe that drunks should be taken off the streets and not be allowed to skirt the law using a technicality so that makes me a socialist?

I don't buy into the notion that cops just walk around with straps and needles torturing people at random so suddenly I'm an Obama supporter?

What I do know is this: The mere act of getting behind the wheel constitutes consent to a sobriety test. If you suddenly decide that you don't consent anymore, you're getting stuck.

Good call on the bicycle DUI, though. I'd not thought of that. If you refuse a sobriety test in a place where they CAN'T "strap you down", how do they enfore drunk biking? Just fines and jail-time?

JOHN wrote:

This is violation of human rights. The legal system is intruding more and more into our rights as citizens making up ways to justify there actions claiming it helps the community but it only helps there employee pocket book. The legal system says it wants to save money, but we do have the right to a trial. If they were concerned about safety they could stand out side of bars and clubs to observe for intoxicated people and arrest them for Public Intox, before getting into a car and hurting someone severely. However more money is made with DWI. The legal system wants money, they should rather think of to prevent DWI from occurring, but that would put many out of a job. GOD BLESS AMERICA

I agree; look at the recent decision in Dallas to not cont. with the red light cameras because they weren't bringing in enough revenue. I thought they were to discourage red light runners, making intersections safer.

In a number of states they studies have found they cuase accidents AND worst of all cities tamper with them (there are court cases about this) so that they snap a picture of cars already in the intersection BEFORE the light turns red.

Yes, it's just another money making wolf dressed in sheep's clothing of "it's for safety".

From Radley Balko’s column, come this frightening story of police abuse:

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp...

An Albany woman was stopped for no apparent reason, then, with no apparent probable cause, was subjected to a humiliating public search for drugs in which an officer inserted two fingers into her vagina.

They also seized her cell phone, and made a random call to one of her contacts, again without a warrant or probable cause. They found no drugs.

The actions of police in the minutes that followed would end in controversy rather than with an arrest.

They would also leave Shutter, a 28-year-old single mother from Ravena, shaken and angry after one of the officers allegedly inserted his finger into Shutter's vagina on a public street during an apparent search for drugs.

When it was over, "I pulled off down the road and I just cried for probably a half hour," Shutter said. "I called my dad.... I felt like I had been basically raped."

The woman filed a complaint, but it was never forwarded to the city’s civilian review board, whose entire purpose is to investigate complaints against the police.

The police chief explained that the police aren’t required to forward every complaint to the board, particularly if the complainant requests that it not be, as the chief says happened in this case. This apparently came as a surprise to the city councilman who actually wrote the review board legislation.

As for the woman not wanting her complaint forwarded to the review board, that’s apparently because an internal affairs officer “persuaded” her to let the complaint be handled internally.

Incidentally, the two officers in Albany have yet to be disciplined–not even the obligatory “suspension with pay.” And now more people are coming forward with similar allegations.”

Ginger, I suppose you’ll be voting for this right to be over-ridden too if the police get a warrant, huh?

I totally support this so law enforcement can get evidence. This refusal crap that people do is not a right it is to make defense attorneys rich. If your drunk don't drive. If your innocent provide a sample to prove it.

What about the rights of people to NOT be hit by a drunk driver? You're yelling about YOUR rights but what about the rights of all the people who have been maimed or killed by drunks? How selfish you are! Just don't drive after you've been drinking more than one cocktail or beer and guess what????? You've got NOTHING to worry about.... There are such things as taxis, friends who don't drink as well as self-restraint... DUH!!

2 Ginger wrote:

From Radley Balko’s column, come this frightening story of police abuse:
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp...
An Albany woman was stopped for no apparent reason, then, with no apparent probable cause, was subjected to a humiliating public search for drugs in which an officer inserted two fingers into her vagina.

As for the woman not wanting her complaint forwarded to the review board, that’s apparently because an internal affairs officer “persuaded” her to let the complaint be handled internally.
Incidentally, the two officers in Albany have yet to be disciplined–not even the obligatory “suspension with pay.”

So you think these officers should be suspended based on what? One woman's accusations? You think Police don't get false complaints ALL THE TIME? Why put someone on suspension and validate the claim if there is no merit? Maybe she "persuaded" to let the complaint be handled internally and not follow through with it in fear of being filed on for making a False Report to Police.

Here is an idea. How about you wait until an investigation is done complete with polygraph and THEN make a decision regarding suspension.

This coming from the King of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". lol