Have PGP..Be considered a Criminal??

[IKnowNot]

Well, I still don’t see the correlation but since I already went over the original topic maybe I should just touch on this a bit. DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion only. Check with all applicable laws, court rulings, etc. which may apply to your area.

My state too has a similar “ Implied Consent” law. But that “ Implied Consent” only refers to breath tests. Refuse to take the breath tests and you are issued a separate summons for failing to do so. Any fines, license revocations, jail time etc. as a result of that failure are in addition to any fines, license revocations, etc. for the summons issued for driving while under the influence. So if you are convicted of both you get hammered twice. If you manage to be found not guilty of driving while impaired you can still be found guilty of refusing to take the breath tests.

Now here is where it gets a little tricky, and maybe a little too technical for many. Lets suppose you refuse to take the breath tests. You are issued a summons for that refusal and think, oh well, at least I’ll beat the driving while impaired.

Maybe, maybe not.

Leaving out the experience of the officer, their training, credibility, observations, etc. which could be used to convict a person even if there are no breath samples available to the court let us look at something else.

The” Implied Consent” law in my state only applies to the taking of breath samples, not blood or urine . Last I checked most state Supreme Courts I know of, and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled that blood and urine are not testimonial in nature and thus ( specifically referring to the Federal Constitution issue here ) is not subject to the Fifth Amendment protection ( similarly to State Constitution's provisions).

Because of the volatile nature of the evidence ( the body breaks it down over time and the evidence is lost ) a person can not refuse to give blood or urine samples. Supreme Courts have ruled that if a person resists they may be strapped down and blood taken by force, catheters may be used to extract urine, etc. ( although most sane Courts require it be done in a medically approved manner. )

See where I am going with this?

O.K. For the cynics.
Q. Why aren’t breath samples considered “ none testimonial in nature” like blood and urine?
A. They are.

Q. Then why are the “ Implied Consent” laws necessary?
A. Just think about that for a moment. The term “ shocks the conscious “ comes to mind here. I can just see a police officer on the side of the road, a hose taped to a persons mouth who is lying on the ground and the officer jumping up and down on their chest to retrieve a breath sample. That just won’t work ( at least not where I live! )

To tie this in with the failing to divulge encryption keys: if, in the case of taking blood or urine samples, someone were to fight so hard even when strapped down to make it impossible to take the samples safely that person could be charged with destruction of evidence ( as they know the evidence will disappear with time. ) If someone were to withhold encryption keys they could possibly be charged with
a) withholding evidence
b) contempt of court
c) obstruction of justice ( or law, depending on the wording of the applicable statutes )

and maybe other offenses. ( I’m under the influence now, so I may miss some things. )

BTW, the part of the U.S. Fifth Amendment right referred to here is known as the right against self-incrimination, founded, in pertinent part:

... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...

.
To my understanding that refers to being forced ( compelled ) to answer questions ( testify ) at a hearing or trial which may tend to incriminate ones self. It does not refer to a record ( written, recorded, or any other physical evidence etc. ) someone made at some previous time just because that person is the subject of said hearing, trial, etc.

All of the above assumes that the officer had what is know here in the U.S. as Probable Cause that an offense has been committed. What is that? I’m not that drunk to try to explain it!

I hope you’ve enjoyed reading this. Or maybe it has sparked within you an outrage with a sincere desire to discredit my ranting. To do so would mean you would have to research these topics, which would mean you would have to learn something, and thus, I have won anyway!

As catch would say,

cheers,

[zencoder]

Colorado has the 'double whammy' too. It works slightly differently, but same end result. If you consent to the breath test and are found to have a BrAC of 0.08% (it was 0.1% in my day, gone down since) you are also charged with DUI Per Se. In Colorado, DUI is based solely on the officers judgement of your capability to drive in the current condition, regardless of actual BrAC levels. Therefor, a 119 pound floozy could run over a person while having a BrAC of only 0.068%, and still be charged and properly convicted (if so found) of DUI.

In CO, DUI is solely a judgement of the drivers condition as observed by the office. This requires a lot of boring training (I used to teach it...I'd rather scratch out my eyeballs than do it again), and DUI law is one of the most lucrative practice areas in this state. Cross examination can leave you feeling like a traitor to your country. In counterpoint, DUI Per Se has nothing to do with driver capabilities or apparent condition. It is solely factual; chemical analysis of blood or breathe (urine is not used, or at least was not in my time) determines the content to be at or above the legal limit.

[IKnowNot]

... (urine is not used, ...

The driving while impaired statues here are not restricted to just alcohol.

[gore]

Michigan state police did a test similar :

They let some people get drunk, then under a closed area, drive to a destination and the drunks couldn't drive.

The people who were stoned not only made it to their destinations without hitting anything they drove more slow and stayed safe.

I've driven on Oxy Contin. It was the same time I learne dhow to drive a stick. This may seem like it's easy but I know of people who can't even walk on that drug let a lone learn how to drive a stick shift for the first time where the ****ing stick barely worked and the gears slipped, meaning if you were in first, it stalled out most of the time when you tried driving after being at a stop sign.

If that wasn't enough cops were everywhere and even though I had never driven a stick and the thing ****ed up a lot, I did it on that drug without a problem.

Then again most people here know how Opiates affect me. I'm hoping and Praying that one day the police can do another test for people on the road and I can sign up to do my driving test on Morphine. A drop can put someone to sleep after a SURGERY.

I however can drive and concentrate better than when I'm not on anything.

I won't drink and drive though, that DOES affect my motor function. My best friend won't eother. We are "Punk ass kids" but at least we are responcible drivers which if anyone here has EVER driven in Detroit knows that takes a lot.

So if you've never driven on roads where semi trucks run red lights and don't care, heh, shut your mouth.

Thinking about it harder a lot of things I know how to do I learned on an Opiate.It makes learning easier for me. And I know someone who posted on this page would benifit form it as well, as they have ADD almost as bad as I do.

Yesterday sucked big ****. I had not even a half a pill for all day long, I couldn't concentrate for ****, I pretty much did nothing all day, I couldn't. Just like when I was in high school and had never done these Opiates. I couldn't do **** then either.

[jinxy]

To continue the analogy, in the UK. Failing to provide a breath sample is a crime and carries the same sentance as driving with an alcohol level above the legal limit. Statutory one year ban, minimum (if alcohol level is eccessive) sentance can be custodial. Second offence within ten years carries a statutory three year ban minimum.

You can be breath tested even if you are not driving and if found to be over the limit all the above applies. This is where the intent comes in. If you, for instance, get something out of your car and you have the ignition key in you posession, having had enough alcohol to but you over the limit and a policeman sees you, he can take a breath specimen. The laws point is as you have access to your vehicle while incapable there is an implied intent to drive. The burdon of proof of intent is shifted from the procecution to the defence.

This is in much the same way as the removal of the write to silance, which we Brits no longer have. Failure to reply when questioned can now be looked on as admission of guilt.

[nihil]

/off topic.............but jinxy asked for this:


"You have the right to remain silent, but anything you say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you"

"Please don't hit me again sergeant"

[allenb1963]

Too bad there's no "Driving while STUPID" statute....the roads would be much less crowded around here.

[Striek]

Holy sh** if the government tried to remove the right to silence here they wouldn't be sitting for much longer. They'd fall within a week. People would be willing to start a civil war here over that.

For such a proud people (i.e. unlike the French), you Brits give in too easily.

[jinxy]

For such a proud people (i.e. unlike the French), you Brits give in too easily.

If you think the French are not a proud nation, you are incorrect.......................They have just voted against the european constitution.

We, of course, have kicked their arse more times than we can count, but they are still the only nation to successfully invade us, if you ignor the Romans ( and what have the romans ever done for us)

[gore]

You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be misquoted and used against you.