How do they manage to pass laws like this. This sort of throws our rights to privacy out the window.
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
Printable View
How do they manage to pass laws like this. This sort of throws our rights to privacy out the window.
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
Well, we _do_ vote these clowns into office over and over every couple years. 'Course, someone may find this post annoying and I'll have the feds knocking on my door any day now.
;)
I think I'm going to crawl in a hole somewhere and hide.
I await the attempted enforcement of such a law with thinly-veiled anticipation. ANY good lawyer will defeat it unless their client is a proven spammer. It's a direct violation of the rights guaranteed us by the first amendment.
Did Samuel Clements divulge his true identity when he committed racial slurs in Huckleberry Finn? What about the endless political slurs in his various works?
Nom de Plumes are a way of life, and of authoring. Should I ever assemble a novel, it is my intent to use one as well. Does this mean I should take extreme care not to 'annoy' anyone lest my novel become digitized? I think not!
Long story short, it won't fly. Look for it being killed in the Supreme Court in a few years.
Problem is, some poor sap is going to get nailed with this. Then he will have to go broke fighting his way to the SC. If Bush had two brain cells to rub together, he would have done what Clinton did with the Telecommunications bill. Just tell the Justice Department to ignore that section.
Hey Antionline can finally get TheSpecialist fined. :p I agree with BlackIce though as this law will be hard to enforce. Besides having to track someone down you would have to do a lot more logging at Cybercafes and all places where internet access was given out freely to even make this a reality.
The basis of this entire thing rests on a flawed foundation. That is, you don't have the right *not* to be annoyed, and, it's not illegal to be an annoying gimp. Every single slippery attorney hears this when his bloodless money grubbing freak of a "client" sues for damages related to bothersome behavior.
Anyway, the bill of rights grants you fabulous guarantees so that rubbish like this just blows by in the streets. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for this to be enforced.
--TH13
The fact that the provision might be near-impossible to investigate or prosecute, or that the cost would be prohibitive, doesn't seem to weigh in. CALEA is a case in point (http://www.askcalea.net/). The DoJ is currently waiting for the courts to rule on some portion of the FCC's ability to make this kind of rule, before laying down the criteria that will cost US taxpayers some $17 billion just so Jimmy and Judy can be monitored by the feds while at college.
This is just one more nail in the coffin of free speech and self expression.
This makes me curious about the following scenario:
If you break a US internet law while living in another country (in which that law may not exist), are you still liable for it when you return to the US?
For example, say one travels to Mexico, "annoys" a bunch of people (especially ones living in the US), then returns to the US. Can he be arrested/prosecuted?
I've always found the boundaries of law fascinating when dealing with boundary-less entities, such as the internet and space...
Kurton, if you're willing to pay for a trip to Mexico just to annoy someone from online, you're a sick individual. I say more power to you.
Mrs |ce says this becomes an issue of 'territorial law' - triable in international courts in the FIRST instance of the issue. After the case is tried it becomes 'case law', where the precedent dictates.
I disagree, but I'm not a lawyer. Here's my supporting situation:
Joey Stoner flies to Amsterdam, land of legal dope. He proceeds, while on vacation, to get stoned off his arse on the various (illegal in the US but NOT in Amsterdam) recrational substances available. He has a jolly time on holiday, with no incidents, and returns to the US sober, and not in possession of any of the substances he imbibed.
Now while Joey was in Amsterdam, Fred MIBagent photographs him smoking the dope/imbibing the substances...
When Joey arrives back in the US he is questioned. Joey freely admits he got stoned off his arse, and very willingly allows a search which proves fruitless because Joey's not stupid.
Joey is perfectly legal. He has broken no laws in Amsterdam, and the US laws didn't take priority since he wasn't in the US.
Ok, Mrs |ce has changed her story a bit. Here's the latest:
"As in anything, there are loopholes. Consider this: Joe Blow the idiot from New York deserves a good flaming because he's stupid in general. Fred the |ceman gets pissed off, but because it's illegal here in the US he emails his bro Randy the Fox over in the UK and tells him the story. Now Randy's a good bud of Fred. They know each other's real addresses, real identities, phone numbers, how often they have sex with their respective wives, etc. Randy gets quite perturbed because of Joe's stupidity and launches into him in a most scathing and heinous attack on Joe's person, his parentage, his sexual preference, his race, his religion. Randy does his whorish best to annoy the heck out of Joe. Joe, being the quiet idiot citizen of the US, reports this annoyance to the authorities. They laugh heartily because Randy's in the UK where it's legal. Fred the |ceman accomplishes his mission of annoying Joe and gets off Scot free, EVEN IF Randy tells authorities who he is. Why? Because Fred didn't do the annoying, and didn't openly ask Randy to annoy Joe."
She also goes on to say that the term "annoy" is a vague legal term. What annoys one of us might not annoy another. The ambiguity of the term 'annoy' will cause the unenforcability of the law, and ultimately lead to its downfall.
Mirriam Webster's Dictionary defines ANNOY as:
and ANNOYANCEQuote:
1: to disturb or irritate especially by repeated acts. 2: to harass especially by quick brief attacks ~ vi : to cause annoyance.
Good luck removing the ambiguity to the point where it can become enforcable...Quote:
1: the act of annoying or being annoyed. 2: the state of feeling of being annoyed: vexation 3: a source of vexation or irritation: nuisance <the delay was a minor ~>
Hey Hey,
I think it will be interesting to see the first time someone tries to have someone else charged under this...
It says it has to be done anonymously... If you know who they are to charge them it's not anonymous, therefore you can't charge them.... If it is anonymous, you don't know who they are..
So who's going to pay for an investigation to track the person down? ISPs are going to have to be subpoena'd. If it was an email and it used an out of country mail server then you've hit a dead end.. If it was IRC and the person used a proxy or vhost that was out of the country again you'll hit a dead end... unless that country is really close to the US and willing to uphold the search for uselessness.
While it may have passed into a law... it's almost 100% unrealistic to attempt to enforce it...
Maybe it'll make for a new reality TV show.... CyberSleuths.com... "Watch as this team of highly trained hackers searches for the annoyer... While the annoyee sits at home in devistation <cut to a shot of a crying person> We'll track down those reponsible and see that they're brought to justice"....
And when you consider shows like Big Brother and Survivor.... CyberSleuths.com would definatey go over well...
Peace,
HT
Is this legislation been created to balance out other liberities taken away by the Patriot Act or the legalization of the NSA spying on US citizens? Or more political tripe?
...
..
.
From the article:
*sniff*sniff*... Smells like tripe.Quote:
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
Here's my question. With the whole Clinton telling the DoJ to ignore a section of the law, couldn't a future president un-ignore it so to speak?
We seriously need that "cross line veto" business that was talked about a decade ago. Not sure if I have my term correct, but that was where the president could cross out particular sections of a bill and veto them seperate from the entire bill. This was introduced when congress was voting themselves pay raises alot. (I was 10 at the time, so don't quote me on this paragraph).
Of course, the cross line veto wouldn't help us because bush doesn't give 2 craps anyhow.
|3lack|ce
Depending on how long he stays in Amsterdam and stays off of the Cannabis, as soon as he is back in either the US or Canada, and is under suspicion, they can request a urine sample and with Cannabis.....Quote:
Joey Stoner flies to Amsterdam, land of legal dope. He proceeds, while on vacation, to get stoned off his arse on the various (illegal in the US but NOT in Amsterdam) recrational substances available. He has a jolly time on holiday, with no incidents, and returns to the US sober, and not in possession of any of the substances he imbibed.
Now while Joey was in Amsterdam, Fred MIBagent photographs him smoking the dope/imbibing the substances...
When Joey arrives back in the US he is questioned. Joey freely admits he got stoned off his arse, and very willingly allows a search which proves fruitless because Joey's not stupid.
Joey is perfectly legal. He has broken no laws in Amsterdam, and the US laws didn't take priority since he wasn't in the US.
....so even if he abstained for a couple of days prior to returning, just hanging out at these cafes or coffee houses gives second hand smoke a whole new meaning.... :cool:Quote:
Marijuana is also the drug that is more likely to stay in your system for days, weeks, or even an entire month after the last time that you smoke. Therefore, even though marijuana is one of the least harmful drugs out there, it is also the most likely drug to cause you to fail a drug test.
So I would say he would get nailed, for this even though he took the drug in another country...people forget, most chemicals take awhile to leave the system......
Disclaimer: I am not an expert in this field, re: drugs leaving system..........(just both times we left Amsterdam to go back to Canada, the RCMP were waiting for us at the jetty with their canine units, one dog actually went nuts on a messmates leather gloves, turns out that human perspiration can have the same effect as weed on clothing...who knew)
The term you are looking for is "line item veto." Our governor has it in Washington. The president's have been begging for it for years. Requires a constitutional amendment (I'm a bit vague on the details right now)? Or, just a bill from congress? Congress doesn't like the idea. How would they get pork through with a line item veto? Or ... legislation like we are discussing.
Ain't politics interesting?
;)
The key term here is "request"... All they can do is request, they can't force you to take a urine test, you are the one who has to be the dumbass and say "ok, I'll take the test"...Quote:
Depending on how long he stays in Amsterdam and stays off of the Cannabis, as soon as he is back in either the US or Canada, and is under suspicion, they can request a urine sample and with Cannabis.....
True....and I can believe that most law enforcement agencies will explain to you in great detail that it is in "your best interest" to cooperate, so before we allow you to leave the terminal we would like to have a urine sample....now between Canada and the US, it is not common practise, but I would be willing to bet, that any visitors from Columbia would be not only subjected to a urine sample but a strip search as well, with or without a lawyer present.....Quote:
they can't force you to take a urine test, you are the one who has to be the dumbass and say "ok, I'll take the test"...
If there is a will, there is a way, and we are not that naive to think that law enforcement will not use any means available to justify the end results.......One of the biggets problems is having too much trust in the Law to begin with, people readily allow State Troopers to look in the trunk, even though you have the right to say no, and get a lawyer, or force them to get a warrant, most of the busts they do is because people don't know how to say no to authority.....it's all there, if you know where to look......
As for going after people in other soveriegn jurisdictions, the US has never let the other countries laws stop them before:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1492.cfmQuote:
Expand America's network of mutual legal assistance treaties . Combined with improved domestic law enforcement and global intelligence gathering capabilities, additional MLATs would make life more difficult for criminals who operate on a global basis. This approach also would reveal nations that are unwilling to help the United States, either because they refuse to negotiate an MLAT or because they fail to comply with one that is in force, and thus are deserving of sanctions.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/jud...icial_690.htmlQuote:
Criminal Cases Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties: Since the first U.S. bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) entered into force with Switzerland in 1977, our MLATs have become an increasingly important. They seek to improve the effectiveness of judicial assistance and to regularize and facilitate its procedures. Each country designates a central authority, generally the two Justice Departments, for direct communication. The treaties include the power to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents and other real evidence, to issue search warrants, and to serve process. Generally, the remedies offered by the treaties are only available to the prosecutors. The defense must usually proceed with the methods of obtaining evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country, which usually involve letters rogatory. See also general information in Obtaining Evidence Abroad.
Duck,
Are you sure? I thought if they have probable cause, just like drunk driving, they can arrest you and make you take the test or something....
HT,
I agree that it would be difficult to administer a law like that, but not impossible. Look at what the RIAA has done. I, for one, thought they could never get away with what they're doing now, but I was wrong...
-ik
I agree this law is unenforceable because of its wording, but I want to correct something stated.
I don't know about Canada, but he in the US the US Supreme Court ( and most state courts ) have ruled that urine ( and blood ) are non-testimonial in nature, thus you have no right to refuse. The use of catheters has been upheld to retrieve such evidence ( under medically approved conditions by qualified personnel, ) along with strapping a person down.Quote:
...All they can do is request, they can't force you to take a urine test ...
Although breath is also non-testimonial in nature it is much harder to retrieve without cooperation from the suspect. ( pouncing on someone's chest would be frowned upon. )
That is why in some places if you refuse a breath test they can charge you with a refusal to take the test, but then bring you for a blood test so they get their evidence anyway, and you get a double hit.
( and yes, they need probable cause first )
I actually have several friends that may find themselves in court soon defending themselves against a case of "unreasonable search and siezure". I wish that I had the exact details of what happened to them that night, but it sounds like the driver, age 19, blew clean. The police(for what reason, I don't know, and this will probably be the big point behind the case) then had the two passengers blow. These two were indeed intoxicated, both age 18, and probably were in no state of mind to defend their own rights.
This law will be interesting to see in the future. I'll feel so bad for the first person to be charged and sentenced for this crime.
Dalek - Re: urine sample testing
You're quite correct in that THC and other chemicals stay in your system for extended periods of time (last I heard the only one that didn't was good ol' acid), but It's a moot point. The presence of THC in one's system by itself is not prosecutable. Joey Stoner could tell the authorities "Yes, I just got back from Amsterdam. I got stoned off my arse there on substances which are illegal in the US, and had a wonderful time. Here's the list of substances I took." And he'd still be free. He didn't commit a crime where he was.
The exception to this rule:
If Joey was on probation and failed his drug test they could revoke his probation and return him to prison...however, if he was on probation they wouldn't let him go to Amsterdam in the first place, so they could also prosecute him for illegal drug use (he couldn't go anywhere, so he stayed home and got stoned..).
[edit]From Mrs |ce - if Joey has a criminal history of illegal drug usage in the US, they can use the urinalysis to prosecute him on the basis of 'once a stoner, always a stoner' or 'you cannot change a Leopard's spots' - but even there it's the HISTORY of usage, not the actual test that makes this viable. Each case is different.[/edit]
More a question than anything else. Us Brits, at least those serving have to abide by thier own countries laws plus the host countries laws. At least as far as my knowledge of Queens regs and the Manual of Military law goes. Do not you yanks have the same?Quote:
If Joey was on probation and failed his drug test they could revoke his probation and return him to prison...however, if he was on probation they wouldn't let him go to Amsterdam in the first place, so they could also prosecute him for illegal drug use (he couldn't go anywhere, so he stayed home and got stoned..).
And as a general observation of the thread. You are loosing your constitutional rights one by one just as surely as we Brits are loosing those rights Magna Carter gave us. All under the unbrella of The Fight Against Terrorism.................................. Go look up what terrorism is. It's not what you think. It is however what you let your government get away with to save money on policing etc?
Jinx - in the military, yes. No matter if you're in the US or outside it, you're bound by US law as well as UCMJ, and also the country you're visiting's laws. Civilians don't bear this restriction - something to do with the 'soverignity of citizenship' as it were. They're 'requested' to abide by US law, but a request to a civilian just isn't enforcable.
As to your general observation, I couldn't agree more. The landslide (as far as I perceived it) began with the illegalization of opiates back in the 1800's and has continually worsened over the centuries. With each new session of congress, a tiny bit of the 'freedoms' we hold so dearly are taken away. Our "Patriot Act" dealt a death blow to several things we hold dear, all in the name of 'safety'. Where in our constitution does it say the government has the duty to keep us safe other than by providing a military and giving us the right to bear arms (which is rapidly disappearing too - thanks Brady)? Gone are the days when one could walk naked through the park wearing green jello and reading penthouse magazine...wait a sec, they never existed anyway. Sucks to be me.
I'd sooner live in Germany - the populace is better educated, you can drive as fast as you want on the Autobahn, sunbathe naked in the parks, and drink beer 24/7. If only I could master the language. The UK is looking mighty good too, most especially the sense of community one gains when hanging out in the local pub, but the taxes are just entirely too bloody high and you drive on the wrong side of the road. How's the employment/unemployment rate there?
Exactly, people don't know their rights... But they're good at it, they'll talk fast and say something like:Quote:
If there is a will, there is a way, and we are not that naive to think that law enforcement will not use any means available to justify the end results.......One of the biggets problems is having too much trust in the Law to begin with, people readily allow State Troopers to look in the trunk, even though you have the right to say no, and get a lawyer, or force them to get a warrant, most of the busts they do is because people don't know how to say no to authority.....it's all there, if you know where to look......
"blah blah I'm with the police, you don't have to talk to me if you don't want but I'd like to ask you a couple of questions... do you have weed on you? It be terrible if I had to search you..."
Something like that...
Yes I'm sure, even with reasonable suspicion or PC they'll still arrest you (if they have PC), but if you say no to the breathalyzer then they can't use that as evidence against you in court and your likely to get a lighter sentence/punishment...Quote:
Duck,
Are you sure? I thought if they have probable cause, just like drunk driving, they can arrest you and make you take the test or something....
This is in response to both Iknownot and iron kurton... Iknownot, you are correct, but only under certain circumstances. Usually the only time someone is forced to take a blood test/breathalyzer is when a homicide of some sort has taken place or someone has gotten seriously injured... If a drunk hits someone he'll probably be forced to take the blood test/breathalyzer, but other then that the police do not have the power to force you to take a test just for swerving on the road or smelling like weed...Quote:
I don't know about Canada, but he in the US the US Supreme Court ( and most state courts ) have ruled that urine ( and blood ) are non-testimonial in nature, thus you have no right to refuse. The use of catheters has been upheld to retrieve such evidence ( under medically approved conditions by qualified personnel, ) along with strapping a person down.
|3lack|ce brings up some good points about previous charges on things like drug use... But I'm not sure what your rights are under those circumstances... it's best to leave those things to someone who really knows what they're talking about... like Mrs Ice :)...
The language is not to difficult, they mostly all speak English :D . Don't fall for the, "no speed limit thing", they can and will nick (right you up?) for speeding. The drinking 24/7 is not condusive to maintaining a job for very long ;)Quote:
I'd sooner live in Germany - the populace is better educated, you can drive as fast as you want on the Autobahn, sunbathe naked in the parks, and drink beer 24/7. If only I could master the language. The UK is looking mighty good too, most especially the sense of community one gains when hanging out in the local pub, but the taxes are just entirely too bloody high and you drive on the wrong side of the road. How's the employment/unemployment rate there?
As for us driving on the wrong side of the road. It is the left side, which is still the right side :p
There are plenty of jobs going over here, the pay is an insult and the conditions are a discrace, and thats for the good jobs.
nick you - in American english it'd be 'write you a ticket'.
The left side is the wrong side according to most of Europe, and all of the US, Mexico, and (I'm pretty sure) Canada. Surely we all can't be wrong? Far as I know it's y'all and Jamaica mon. :DQuote:
As for us driving on the wrong side of the road. It is the left side, which is still the right side
There are plenty of jobs going over here, the pay is an insult and the conditions are a discrace, and thats for the good jobs.
Jobs - sounds like the US job situation of late. It's definitely an employer's market.
Ok, off for the night - thunder and lightning aren't good for a wireless network and my router's getting flaky :P
No, you are wrong.Quote:
Usually the only time someone is forced to take a blood test/breathalyzer is when a homicide of some sort has taken place or someone has gotten seriously injured... If a drunk hits someone he'll probably be forced to take the blood test/breathalyzer, but other then that the police do not have the power to force you to take a test just for swerving on the road or smelling like weed...
For starters, look at SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA , a U.S. Supreme Court discussion.
Then go from there and look for applicable case law concerning your state. The suspect not only has no legal right to withhold the specimen, but also has no legal right to have an attorney present during the taking of those samples.
What is needed, as I said, is probable cause , probable cause to believe the specimen sought will contain evidence of an offense, and probable cause to arrest the person for the offense. ( " Fishing expeditions " are not permitted. )
As far as the vehicular homicide, the taking of blood etc. may come under a different statute then drunk driving. Here, if you, as a driver, are involved in an accident where a death occurs you must submit to blood tests, even though there may be no probable cause to believe the driver is intoxicated: this, in my state, is in administrative code, separate from the motor vehicle statutes.
|3lack|ce
Actually.......................Quote:
The left side is the wrong side according to most of Europe, and all of the US, Mexico, and (I'm pretty sure) Canada. Surely we all can't be wrong? Far as I know it's y'all and Jamaica mon.
1. Anguilla
2. Antigua and Barbuda
3. Australia
4. Bahamas
5. Bangladesh
6. Barbados
7. Bermuda
8. Bhutan
9. Botswana
10. Brunei
11. Cayman Islands
12. Christmas Island (Australia)
13. Cook Islands
14. Cyprus
15. Dominica
16. East Timor
17. Falkland Islands
18. Fiji
19. Grenada
20. Guernsey (Channel Islands)
21. Guyana
22. Hong Kong
23. India
24. Indonesia
25. Ireland
26. Isle of Man
27. Jamaica
28. Japan
29. Jersey (Channel Islands)
30. Kenya
31. Kiribati
32. Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Australia)
33. Lesotho
34. Macau
35. Malawi
36. Malaysia
37. Maldives
38. Malta
39. Mauritius
40. Montserrat
41. Mozambique
42. Namibia
43. Nauru
44. Nepal
45. New Zealand
46. Niue
47. Norfolk Island (Australia)
48. Pakistan
49. Papua New Guinea
50. Pitcairn Islands (Britain)
51. Saint Helena
52. Saint Kitts and Nevis
53. Saint Lucia
54. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
55. Seychelles
56. Singapore
57. Solomon Islands
58. South Africa
59. Sri Lanka
60 . Suriname
61 . Swaziland
62. Tanzania
63. Thailand
64. Tokelau (New Zealand)
65. Tonga
66. Trinidad and Tobago
67. Turks and Caicos Islands
68. Tuvalu
69. Uganda
70. United Kingdom
71. Virgin Islands (British)
72. Virgin Islands (US) Remember this when you visit
73. Zambia
74. Zimbabwe........... :p
Our Military also comes under strict rules for observing other countries laws, in fact, it's almost "double jeopardy" in that once the foreign courts have had their say with you, then Military Justice takes over, so you may only recieve a fine from the local judge, but the Military can then nail you for a catch 22 type charge, wherein in the best interests of the Armed Forces you are judged to be expendable, so here spend a couple of months in detention then on release, they force you out......
Brings up story which is on topic..........back in 1982 while onboard a Canadian Destroyer we and a sister ship pulled into Livorno Italy for a 5 day jaunt, the first night ashore 5 of our lads got into some serious trouble with the local authorities, turns out 2 of these guys (all French Canadians) were having a heated discussion at a local watering hole, now if you know French Canadian's they can get pretty emotional when arguing with each other, and if you didn't know this they would look like they were about to tear each other's heads off.........soooo a bystander decided to intervene....wrong!!!! the lads took offence and proceeded to beat the crap out of this person, well this is Italy, home of the spaghetti westerns, and before you knew it the whole place erupted into a free for all, by the time the mini riot was over, 4 cars had been turned over and torched, and the 5 guys arrested and taken to the local lockup...
Well that guy they beat the crap out of, turns out he was a plainclothes cop, and the precint they were at was his....each lad was seperated and placed into a cell by themselves. Our CO immidiatley contacted Baden Germany, and the JAG flew down.Our skipper and the XO went to the jail to talk with the guys, what he saw incensed him greatly, seems the local law liked to play rough when they outnumbered the prisoners. The guys were beat up pretty bad, our CO vowed that we would not leave Livorno until the guys were on board, come Saturday they were brought on board and we sailed, the 2 who were involved from the beginning were tried in absentia, and convicted, if either of them steps foot in Italy they can do 2 years.
Side story.....while they were in cells, they came across a couple of American swabbies off of the USS Saratoga, who had been left behind three Months earlier, their charge....you may think this is funny, but I bet those lads didn't think so afterwards, they were busted for pinching Italian broads in the as*, see they probably saw Dean Martin or Frankie doing this on the big screen and thought it would be cool to do the same thing, "while in Italy do like the Italians" not so....
So yeah, if you are visiting another country, get aquainted with the local laws.........
Sorry Sarah eh? Had a bud on her. Hope he wasn't one of the offending bum pinchers.
US military is much the same on 'double jeopardy permissable.' You get tried in civilian court, do your time, pay your fine, then get courts martialed for the same thing and pay again, or vice versa.
Thanks for the long list :P
Na this is something we can get away with, just add a disclaimer to all your posts. LOL (got to love the discaimers)
Iknownot... I understand where your coming from... I'll have to have a talk with my legal issues teacher, a very good authority on the law (graduated from loyola university in chicago)... I'm guessing he was forced to take the test because he might have done a lot of property damage.... It didn't say how much damage as done, but I also didn't look very hard...
But I will say your comment is not 100% correct, how do I know? I know from experience, my mother has gotten 2 DUI's last year, the first time she got pulled over they "requested" her to take the breathalyzer test, she said no and therefore got a lighter punishment, the second time I'm not sure what happened and her punishment was much more severe and I'll leave it at that...
Bottom line is, my family and I have a lot of experience dealing with the law, so I know for a fact that very rarely are you forced to take any kind of tests unless you killed someone, injured somone, or did a lot of property damage... The reason you see alot people taking those tests is because they simply don't know they're rights...
I will talk more about this with my law teacher as well...
The Duck
I suppose it depends on what state you are from, but just generally reading some of them and the severity of the traffic violation, it would appear that voluntarily is not the rule as opposed to the exception???
SourceQuote:
Illinois --Any Traffic Arrest is Sufficient
625 ILCS 5/11-501.6 (a) Any person who drives or is in actual control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this State and who has been involved in a personal injury or fatal motor vehicle accident, shall be deemed to have given consent to a breath test using a portable device as approved by the Department of State Police or to a chemical test or tests of blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the content of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds of such person's blood if arrested as evidenced by the issuance of a Uniform Traffic Ticket for any violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code or a similar provision of a local ordinance, with the exception of equipment violations contained in Chapter 12 of this Code, or similar provisions of local ordinances. The test or tests shall be administered at the direction of the arresting officer. The law enforcement agency employing the officer shall designate which of the aforesaid tests shall be administered. A urine test may be administered even after a blood or breath test or both has been administered. Compliance with this Section does not relieve such person from the requirements of Section 11-501.1 of this Code.
So from the looks of it, each incident will determine what tests will be taken and how "Voluntarily/Non-Voluntarily".
Here in Canada, it's different, back in 79 I refused the breathalyser (I had 3 beers, but had just left the tavern, so not sure about the test, and I don't trust cops.) I automatically lost my license for 6 Months, that was it.(refusal was admission of guilt), now if you are involved in an accident and taken to a hospital, they will take a blood sample.
What happens if a person refuses to give the police a breath sample?
Note: that in both cases refusal is considered an admission of guilt, and the punishment is the same if not more severe....Quote:
A police officer can demand that a driver provide a breath sample on an "approved screening device" when the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has alcohol in his or her body. The approved screening device test is usually done at the roadside.
A police officer can demand that a driver provide a breath sample on an "approved instrument" when the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed an impaired driving offence or was driving while over the legal limit. The approved instrument test is usually given at the police station.
A person who refuses to give a breath sample when asked, and does not have a legal reason for refusing, can be convicted of the offence of refusing to provide a breath sample. The punishment for this criminal offence is the same as the punishment for the offence of driving while impaired.
The police can ask a person who is unable to provide a breath sample because of an injury or physical problem to provide a blood sample. A doctor or other qualified medical professional will take the blood sample. Refusing to provide a blood sample is also a criminal offence.
Source
You'll still have some kind of punishment if you refuse... you never walk away scott free in those situations... and cops pull some shady stuff as well... Like saying he smells marijuana smoke just to search your car (except trunk, they'll need a warrant for that unless it's a SUV type trunk with windows allowing you to see inside) even though he really doesn't smell anything...
I think the main reason you would want to refuse the breathalyzer, at least in the US, is so you won't have a DUI on your record, which looks very bad... But I'm not sure on this...
Yeah, you may be able to pull that off in the states, but in Canada, a refusal is an admission of guilt and will have the same repurcussions as if you had taken the test and failed.I have seen where the cops activley sit outside bars/establishments and you no sooner have the keys in the door, that they can demand that you submit to a breathalyser, regardless if you were stumbling to the car or "looked" like you were intoxicated.Quote:
I think the main reason you would want to refuse the breathalyzer, at least in the US, is so you won't have a DUI on your record, which looks very bad... But I'm not sure on this...
The joke here in Halifax, for the Sailors, is everytime we came back from a looooong deployment and went ashore, guys would be stopped in broad daylight because the cops thought we were drunk, all it was, was we hadn't been ashore long enough to get our land legs, what I mean by that, is over a period of time and if the weather at sea is rough for a period of time, sailors learn to adapt with the roll of the ship, so if the swells and rolls are 30 to 40 ft and the ship is almost on it's side, well when your walking down the flats, it looks like your walking on the bulkhead, so your legs adapt to the motions of the sea..(just a little dit for you landlubbers)...sorry for being OT there.
1st post
2nd Post
Ok my 'double' (now triple) posting has prolly annoyed alot of members....hopefully some form the US.
Now lets see you enforce your stupid law on me ;)
sometimes its good to live in the UK - tho with how chummy bush/blair are, i doubt there will be many differences soon!!
Aside from having the Regulation of investigatory powers act......
Naw - not annoyed - it just helped me wake up a bit. BTW - Dubya... no, I mean Tony Blair is coming to getcha! The chip in me noggin told me so. Also - are you telling me that the UK doesn't have stupid laws? Rubbish, rubbish I say! Hurrrumph-hurrumph!Quote:
Ok my 'double' (now triple) posting has prolly annoyed alot of members....hopefully some form the US.
Now lets see you enforce your stupid law on me
sometimes its good to live in the UK - tho with how chummy bush/blair are, i doubt there will be many differences soon!!
Also the bits about refusing sobriety tests - not a good idea, as Dalek pointed out. My brother tried that route and sat in jail for another day... when asked why the police, no lie, they said "Because you pissed us off!" They also held onto his license a bit longer as well. His lawyer also stated that it would be wise to take the test and then refute it later. Here check this out fleshbags from laywer who likes to pose:
Link: http://www.relentlessdefense.com/drunkdriving.html
Obviously this will vary from state to state - but first don't drink and drive, but if your a dumbass and think you will, consult a lawyer for your best options before you head out for a great night on the town.
...methinks it's all part of the Full Employment Act For Attorneys.
I'm reminded of a line in the Tao: the more laws you make, the more lawlessness there is.
Scary stuff the US cops can legally do that will tweak you:
1. Arrest and hold you in jail for up to 24 hours without mirandizing you, charging you with anything whatsoever, or allowing you any outside contact.
2. Stop your vehicle and question you.
3. Detain you an extended time at their office while conducting searches, obtaining warrants, etc.
Now think on this before you refuse sobriety testing, breathalyzer tests, or urinalysis:
Ted DopeHead gets stopped for an invented reason. Cops say later the reason was 'a random insurance/registration check' - this is a legal and valid reason to stop someone even if they have stopped no other vehicles that day for that reason.
Ted gives no probable cause, but has a record of dope violations. This past record gives cause to search his car with Ted's consent. Ted, of course, refuses consent. Ted is immediately placed 'into custody'. His car is towed to the police impound yard, and Ted is put in a back office for questioning prior to booking. He isn't mirandized, or informed he's had charges leveed against him.
3 hours later Ted's car, on arriving at the police yard, is searched. This is standard procedure for impounding a vehicle. The search finds dope, and a goodly bit of it.
Ted's been sitting in this room, hancuffed and alone for 3 hours. He's informed he's under arrest for possession with intent to distribute due to the quantity of the dope found in his vehicle. He's informed his car is confiscated forever since it was being used in a drug deal. Ted is now mirandized, questioned, and placed in jail. He still hasn't had his phone call. He won't get one until he gets arraigned the next day because he was an ass to the cops by not letting them search his car. It's all quite legal - even though NO WARRANT was ever issued for searching his car.
Situation 2:
Ted is stopped for the same 'reason' above and asked to take a urinalysis because the cop says he smells marijuana smoke. Ted refuses, demanding to see his attorney. Ted is placed 'into custody' and jailed in a cell by himself. He is filmed and recorded during his visit. During this time the cops obtain a warrant not only for urinalysis by catheter, but also by blood test since time has elapsed. Ted is forced by catheter and needle to provide samples the cops require. He's formally arrested and charged with driving under the influence of narcotics when the test results arrive. Ted isn't allowed his phone call or attorney visit until after 24 hours have elapsed.
Now to disabuse some myths -
You are NOT required to be read your rights until within 24 hours of your formal arrest. This means the cops can take you into 'custody', stick you in a cell for 23 hours and 59 minutes, take you out and 'arrest' you, put you back in the cell for another 23 hours and 59 minutes, then remove you and mirandize you. That's two days with NO outside contact, and you sitting in a jail cell while your loved ones search the streets frantically for you.
You do NOT have the "right to one phone call", ever. The use of a telephone is a courtesy offered by the police, not a right of yours. Theoretically they can hold you there forever and you never see the outside world other than through your court appointed attorney.
The police do NOT have to have a warrant to search your vehicle, ever. They simply need to impound it and it's automatically searched by standard procedure. Since EVERY vehicle that enters their impound yard is searched, it's legal search. They don't have to have a warrant to search your person either, since safety protocol is to pat you down for weapons and do a more thorough search when you're booked into jail. This includes body cavity searches. They DO have to obtain warrant, however, for obtaining body fluid samples unless you yourself provide them willingly. They also have to have a warrant to search your home. They can hold you in their jail without charging you for ample time to procure said warrant if they so desire, and if you're an ass to them, they probably will. Remember, they've got a minimum of 24 hours regardless, and if they're feeling mean about it, they'll use every second of it.
Source:
The Underground Lawyer - Michael Minns. Copyright 1989 Gopher Publications of Katy, Texas.
No parts of this post were quoted directly from the book, but the information given within was used to construct illustrations for the points made.