Tarrant County Police Set for 'No Refusal' Weekend

[hustleman]

What makes it different is you aren't given an option to refuse. Fine, they refuse, take them to jail but this bullshit is why the 4th amendment was written. Pencil whipping warrants to cover an arrest isn't constitutional.

How does this make any sense? The same PC that has them going to jail, is the same PC for an evidentiary warrant.

[BradM]

"ALWAYS set up a designated driver before hand. When me and the girl go out we always decide which one of us will be the DD so she can drink."

Lol

[racrguy]

X2! I don't give a fuck WHO you are... If you get popped and you're over the limit then you should pay the price. Is it unconstitutional to kill someone while your intoxicated?

What if an officer thinks you're drunk and you aren't? Where's the protection against the word of the officer?

[Tannerm]

What if an officer thinks you're drunk and you aren't? Where's the protection against the word of the officer?

Then blow. Or give a blood sample. People always say they ain't drunk. Ok fine. Then prove it to yourself. Otherwise ur left to the courts to decide. And it's 50/50 in there... I could have a slam dunk drunk and still lose because of a semi decent def attorney. If a person isn't drunk or high, then ur clues will be slim. And on video in court a weak sfst REALLY shines.

[LS1Goat]

What if an officer thinks you're drunk and you aren't? Where's the protection against the word of the officer?

I'm pretty sure blowing a 0 on a Breathalyzer test would impugn anything the officer had to say.

[Moose242]

Here's an idea: don't drive after drinking and you have nothing to worry about.

My God, this just might work!

[helosailor]

Here's an idea: don't drive after drinking and you have nothing to worry about.

[davbrucas]

How does this make any sense? The same PC that has them going to jail, is the same PC for an evidentiary warrant.

The forcibly taking blood from someone is probably what he was referring to...being forced to provide evidence against yourself in a criminal matter. I am not a fan of idiots driving drunk but feel that if they are actually impaired, then blood evidence is not needed. A person can pass the FST with a 0.09 and not be impaired but a govt mandated number then has to be proven to extort the person for money.

With that said, when a douche nozzle comes into the ED after MVC and is obviously intoxicated, I have no problem telling the officer the BAC.

[kingjason]

The forcibly taking blood from someone is probably what he was referring to...being forced to provide evidence against yourself in a criminal matter. I am not a fan of idiots driving drunk but feel that if they are actually impaired, then blood evidence is not needed. A person can pass the FST with a 0.09 and not be impaired but a govt mandated number then has to be proven to extort the person for money.

With that said, when a douche nozzle comes into the ED after MVC and is obviously intoxicated, I have no problem telling the officer the BAC.

What is unfortunate, is that lawyers have turned DWI into a money grab, and a fucking circus act. I will actively go after the obvious dangerous drunks with a passion. You know, driving the wrong way on the highway, and shit like that. Did you know they were trying to drop the BAC to .04? Who do you think is behind that? Also if someone passes the FST then there is no blood draw. It is only when they have an accident with injury(this may have changed recently), they fail the SFST's ,or if they refuse the SFST's all together and you have enough information to articulate them being drunk. You know, they have no clue where the fuck they are, they live in Houston and are going home from a bar in Houston, but are in Dallas!

[davbrucas]

What is unfortunate, is that lawyers have turned DWI into a money grab, and a fucking circus act. I will actively go after the obvious dangerous drunks with a passion. You know, driving the wrong way on the highway, and shit like that. Did you know they were trying to drop the BAC to .04? Who do you think is behind that? Also if someone passes the FST then there is no blood draw. It is only when they have an accident with injury(this may have changed recently), they fail the SFST's ,or if they refuse the SFST's all together and you have enough information to articulate them being drunk. You know, they have no clue where the fuck they are, they live in Houston and are going home from a bar in Houston, but are in Dallas!

Yup...it's all about money.

But, you can "articulate" a person being impaired despite passing the FST...which is pretty officer dependent despite criteria that needs to be met. Then the person can be forced to give blood to prove their innocence.

[Cooter]

I think he's saying that for him, if somebody has a little beer on their breath but doesn't seem impaired and passes FST with flying colors, he's letting them go and not trying to ruin their life because of a legal BAC percentage number

[davbrucas]

I think he's saying that for him, if somebody has a little beer on their breath but doesn't seem impaired and passes FST with flying colors, he's letting them go and not trying to ruin their life because of a legal BAC percentage number

I dont doubt he would do that...but most officers wouldnt.

[racrguy]

Then blow. Or give a blood sample. People always say they ain't drunk. Ok fine. Then prove it to yourself. Otherwise ur left to the courts to decide. And it's 50/50 in there... I could have a slam dunk drunk and still lose because of a semi decent def attorney. If a person isn't drunk or high, then ur clues will be slim. And on video in court a weak sfst REALLY whines.

Why should I or anyone else have to prove our innocence? Shouldn't the onus be on the police to prove it without forcing someone to provide evidence against themselves?

That's where the problem is. You think that just because you have the idea that someone is drunk means they are, and they must now prove their innocence. That's fucked up. I refuse to offer up any information or possible things that can do me harm.

At least that's the impression that you gave to me when you replied.

[Cooter]

Why should I or anyone else have to prove our innocence? Shouldn't the onus be on the police to prove it without forcing someone to provide evidence against themselves?

That's where the problem is. You think that just because you have the idea that someone is drunk means they are, and they must now prove their innocence. That's fucked up. I refuse to offer up any information or possible things that can do me harm.

At least that's the impression that you gave to me when you replied.

you're not thinking of the children!!!!!!!!!

[KBScobravert]

I want to hear how many people are hauled down to have their weekend ruined because they refused to be forced to prove they haven't been drinking.