Are the laws set up to convict you? Is the legal deck stacked? In a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is it fair to punish me for invoking my rights during a DWI traffic stop? Where is the blind justice in saddling me with punishments before ever laying any burden of proof onto the government municipality? How is it legal to be punished for no other reason than to use my rights afforded to me? If the Constitution allows me to invoke and use the 5th and 6th Amendments at the time of a traffic stop, the subsequent interrogation by the officer, etc, how is it just that the system which affords me and even guarantees my ability to use those rights turn around and punish me for using them? Why will I lose my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for using rights afforded to me by the very same document? I think about this, and I am not naive enough to think that hypocrisy isn't rife within our system of laws in this society, but I wonder... How has this not been Constitutionally challenged before? The saddling of license revocation for invoking Constitutional Rights just does not sound legal in my mind. How has no one argued on these premises before?
With that logic there could be no DNA tests, no fingerprints, no hair samples, ...etc taken from anybody. I also have to agree with Southlink if you were drinking and driving you put everybody on the road at risk. That cop might have saved a life and kept you out of jail for homicide.
Long before 9-11 the DWI laws were set up to deny you the right to drive if you refused to cooperate with the cop who wants you to blow into the balloon. If you refuse to give up your 5th amendment right against self incrimination you automatically lose your drivers license for 6 months before there are any court proceedings to determine whether you are guilty or not guilty.
One can get a murder, rape or robbery conviction.. erased (pardon, court ruling) from your record in GA. But not a DUI......
No, there's a difference... DNA tests, fingerprints, hair samples can all be obtained with a warrant, sworn out by the cops based on a specific reason for suspecting an individual.
Re: No, there's a difference... I understand there is a difference but his point seems to be a person should just be able to plead the 5th to avoid any kind of self incrimination. But anyway driving a car is not a Constitutional right therefore can be easily regulated, and giving up your DL is not proof of guilt. You still have to go to court. You just do not get to drive until then, which again is not a right. Cops still do have to base their decision to pull someone over on something. Generally(depends on state) they have to be pulled over for speeding, wreckless driving, ... etc. Just like there are a few situations where you do not always need a warrant to search based on situation, here by the time you could get a warrant their blood alcohol level would go down. He should be thankful he was not allowed to kill somebody.
Driving a car is a pursuit of happiness for me...It provides my ability to provide for myself...Like it or not, driving provides me with the ability to be employed, and therefore, to take the privilege away renders me next to unemployable, as almost any want ad mentions, "must have access to reliable transportation"...
