Don't blow for the po-po

[Fatal_Bert]

I had made up my mind a long time ago I'd never submit to a roadside test. Not going to help them make a case against me.

Well used to be refusal could get your licence suspended for a year so you were kinda forced to submit. But that appears to be changing now based on some court decisions and it's long over due as far as I'm concerned.

 

[hikingthehills]

I dont drink and drive so no worries here anyways.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

I dont drink and drive so no worries here anyways.

That's good. And now if you pull up to a road block and an officer shoves a breathalyzer in your face you can tell him to kick rocks without worrying about losing your licence under some bogus unconstitutional implied consent laws.

 

[deller]

I dont drink and drive so no worries here anyways.

I find it disappointing that a number of grown "responsible" men find it so exciting that they may have found a loophole for avoiding a drunk driving charge. (don't bother with the constitutional comments ) as from what I've seen in the comments made thus far that's not what this thread is about.

When you have lost a loved one to that "really nice guy" who had one to many or pulled the broken body of a child from a wrecked car hit by a drunken driver its hard to have any empathy for anyone who drinks and drives.

 

[Adams454]

The way I read the implied consent script; if you don't blow you lose you license for a year, if you do blow and its high enough you lose your license for a year, and you gave them proof. Isn't there also a "less-safe" dui that you can be charged with even if you don't blow .08?

 

[WyldeDime]

I find it disappointing that a number of grown "responsible" men find it so exciting that they may have found a loophole for avoiding a drunk driving charge. (don't bother with the constitutional comments ) as from what I've seen in the comments made thus far that's not what this thread is about.

When you have lost a loved one to that "really nice guy" who had one to many or pulled the broken body of a child from a wrecked car hit by a drunken driver its hard to have any empathy for anyone who drinks and drives.

Do you realize how close your argument is to being the same as the one used by the anti-gun crowd?

 

[deller]

That's not what we are talking about. Do you drink and drive? If not, its not an issue for you.

 

[EVILWS6]

Yeah but....how does this impact LE from obtaining a warrant for a blood test at the jail like the Gwinnett Sheriffs???

 

[Hasselhoss]

I don't care if you drink or not. Print this.
http://steinfirm.com/steinfirm.com/rights/card.html

 

[Ken Ford]

The way I read the implied consent script; if you don't blow you lose you license for a year, if you do blow and its high enough you lose your license for a year, and you gave them proof. Isn't there also a "less-safe" dui that you can be charged with even if you don't blow .08?

Yes

 

[Fatal_Bert]

I find it disappointing that a number of grown "responsible" men find it so exciting that they may have found a loophole for avoiding a drunk driving charge. (don't bother with the constitutional comments ) as from what I've seen in the comments made thus far that's not what this thread is about.

When you have lost a loved one to that "really nice guy" who had one to many or pulled the broken body of a child from a wrecked car hit by a drunken driver its hard to have any empathy for anyone who drinks and drives.

I will bother you with constitutional comments cause that's what this subject is about but you seem more interested in an emotional conversation. Like the article states in this modern day and age officers should have no problem getting an electronic warrant when they have probable cause to believe someone is driving impaired. All this means now is that they can't shove a breathalyzer in your face at a road block and say give me your consent or we'll suspend your licence.