Obviously they’re legal or we wouldn’t be doing them, but this just seems all kinds of wrong to me. Using whatever physical force is deemed necessary by the police to restrain you and shove a needle in your arm and forcibly take your blood just seems draconian. Texas, and I’m guessing Oklahoma already have laws in place to punish you if you refuse a field sobriety test, just my opinion but if necessary make those laws stronger and leave the torture techniques to history. If you’re involved in an injury accident that should be the exception IMO. What if you’re a Christian Science member and it’s against your religion to be injected? Certainly not advocating anyone drive drunk, just surprised this is legal here in the US.
School me on No Refusal Weekends
- Thread starter gopokes83
- Start date
Tell me what states are doing “no refusal weekends” and what you think that means.
I know of no state that is “using whatever physical force deemed necessary by police to restrain you and shove a needle…etc.”.
Maybe this will help….
“The terminology of No Refusal Weekends is somewhat misleading. Many people may interpret the name as meaning they cannot refuse an officer’s request to submit to BAC or drug testing. This is not the case.
What No Refusal means is that law enforcement takes steps to reduce the number of legal refusals of such tests. They accomplish this not by making it illegal to refuse to comply with BAC and drug testing, but by speeding up the process of obtaining warrants and conducting tests.
Local law enforcement agencies provide more resources to process DUI offenses by putting more officers on the road, keeping a magistrate readily available to review, sign, and approve search warrants, and having more blood-draw nurses available to speed up tests;
The intention is to both discourage individuals from driving drunk and to better handle the increased number of drunk drivers who will be on the road during high-risk periods.
With a warrant, a police officer may escort a driver to the office for additional breath and blood testing. In some cases, blood testing may even occur on site. The test results are evidence usable for the DUI/DWI case in court.
Without consent or a warrant, conducting a BAC or drug test violates the Fourth Amendment. If you have been subject to such a test, contact an attorney to help you protect your rights.”
Then implied consent laws basically say if you refuse a test once you’ve been arrested for dui, that refusal can be used against you in court and in many states leads to an automatic revocation/suspension of your license.
Last edited:
I understand they get warrants, which is why I stated it must be legal. Just going on my own observations (from local Houston news last summer or two ago, or maybe New Years) where it showed a guy strapped to a chair in the back of a big van getting jabbed while he was struggling to get out. I know what they say about assumptions but it sure didn’t look like he willingly jumped in that seat. Like I said there are already laws that basically treat you like you’re guilty if you refuse the field test. If there’s no accident, then toughen up those laws, make it a 18 month automatic suspension and put you on a suspected drunk driver list where if you are caught under the influence it counts as your second offense rather than your first. I know that feelings don’t mean jack when it comes to the law, but this just seems really wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agree to disagree. Tell that to someone who has lost loved ones to a drunk driver. Every time someone drives under the influence, they are placing other innocents at risk as much as if they were drunkenly firing rounds in the air. I also think characterizing taking a blood sample….something almost everyone has undergone without incident in their lifetime as draconian torture is really, really silly to the point of hysterics.
Probable cause to search, including a blood sample is presumptively reasonable because it’s been reviewed and approved by an impartial magistrate.…..hell, it’s in the constitution
And the laws don’t “treat you like you’re guilty” if you refuse. State still has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt even with a refusal. You’re proposal of being on a suspected drunk driver and if you are finally caught under the influence it counting as your second is treating a refusal like they’re already guilty more than still having to prove it in court. Whether or not you get to keep your license is purely a civil matter, not criminal at all.
Btw, how are they ever gonna get caught under the influence if you always refuse a test and just get placed on a suspect list?
Last edited:
Maybe just don’t drink and drive?
No sh!t. But people have been doing it since the first cars, and will continue to do so as long as alcohol is made. I remember reading a couple of years ago about a push for mandatory alcohol interlocks in all US cars after 2020 something. Guess that idea went away.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk