Refuse a breathalyzer test - 1 year license suspended

What are you thoughts on this?

Personally I think it's yet another stab at our freedom. And no I don't condone drinking and driving.

Innocent until proven guilty? Now you must give law enforcement their own evidence to be used against yourself or face a consequence.

 

I'm on the fence with this one because I see both sides. I was arrested for DUI (I was drinking, but not sure if I was .08), refused the test, and had charges dropped.

However, my wife and son were recently hit by a drunk driver. Luckily, they were not injured. The driver was arrested and sited for 2nd offense DUI. The accident report even lists him as 'obviously intoxicated'. In battling with the insurance company, I learned that he refused the test and is pleading 'not guilty' to the charges. I want to beat this guy to a pulp for endangering my family like that, but if he beats the charge, there is no consequence to him.

So, I believe if you're pulled over for a random traffic stop, you shouldn't be required to take the test. But, if you're in an accident of any kind, you should take the test or lose your license, regardless of whether the DUI sticks.

 

Normally, I'd agree with you but considering how bad drunk driving is here in Louisiana (worst in the nation), it doesn't bother me. I get sick and tired of lawyers telling people "don't blow and I can get you out of it".. This strategy has become exploited to the point now that everyone thinks they can get out of it by simply not blowing in the machine.. Since they think they can beat the charge so easily and in some cases do, they keep drinking and driving. As a result you see people daily in the paper with 2, 3, 4, 5 and more DUI's.. What lawyers should be telling people this: "Don't freakin drink and drive and you won't need my services." Of course, they won't say that because it's about nothing more than money to them, not anyone's rights. Obviously, not all lawyers are bad guys but you get my drift.

What I would suggest them making it to where you can only refuse the test on your 1st offense just like you can now, provided there was no injury or accident. But, once you use that card that's it. People screw up sometimes, and the intelligent ones would come to realize this wake up call and they would stop doing it after they pay steep fines, do some community service, AA, etc.. Intelligent people would also realize how bad it could have been for them or someone else. The Darwin award candidates.. not so much.

Then, once you have one DUI you no longer have the right of refusal.. Your prior record at that time should be enough probable cause to make you submit to the test; breath, blood, or otherwise.. Forcefully or not. After the 3rd offense, mandatory jail time. And I don't mean a couple months, I mean a couple years. The only way they will slow down idiots from this type of behavior is to make the punishment unfair to the point that people are scared to break that law. Of course, some people will still do it because they don't ever think they're too drunk to drive. They should also exclude the possibility of using Article 894 other than on your first DUI.. They need to stick, not be wiped off your record after "being good"... Currently, you can use it every 5 years from what a certain D.A. (Mr. Moore) told me.

Obviously my idea has it's flaws, but considering the way people abuse the system now, it's a good start I think.

Desperate times call for desperate measures..

 

I'll call your "infringing on my rights by making me take a breathalyzer", and raise you with "infringing on my rights by driving drunk and killing everyone in my family."

I agree that DWI checkpoints are total BS and should be illegal. It is the definition of anti constitutional, but pulling someone over who is speeding/swerving, realizing they look/smell like booze and demanding they take a breathalyzer is not infringing on your rights.

 

DWI checkpoints are legal because the courts determined that driving is a luxury, and not a right. Thus, the punishment for refusing to blow does not infrenge upon any rights either.

I think DWI checkpoints (and cameras taking pictures of speeders/people that run lights for that matter) are purely for the money. This should be illegal.

But my only real issue with DWI's is that I believe the legal limit is currently too low...

 

Travel is a right.

As a so called Libertarian I would hope you wouldn't think driving is simply a privilege.

It is yet another freedom taken away by these bureaucrats for money.

Take a read

Driving A Right, Not A Privilege

 

If you don't want a DUI, don't drive after you drink. How is this difficult? If you absolutely insist on doing so and you get caught, STFU and blow in the machine. Drinking is bad for you and it's dangerous to others when you don't do it responsibly. If you are sick of getting in trouble for doing something THEN STOP FREAKING DOING IT RETARD.

Typically people don't vehemently refuse to comply with a rule unless they think it is possible that they are breaking it.

 

Following the constitution now = activist judge. haha