if your in the US and annoy someone on the web, goto jail.

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???

Quote:

---

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.

---

Source

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?

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.

---

Note: that in both cases refusal is considered an admission of guilt, and the punishment is the same if not more severe....

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...

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...

---

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.

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......

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!!

---

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!

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.