‘No Refusal’ Blood Test Checkpoint Program Continues To Expand Nationwide

http://www.prisonplanet.com/%e2%80%9...ationwide.html

‘No Refusal’ Blood Test Checkpoint Program Continues To Expand
Nationwide

Wyoming latest state to introduce legislation mandating driver
compliance

Tuesday, Jan 18th, 2011

Wyoming will become the latest in a string of states to mandate
drivers to submit to blood tests at DUI checkpoints if a new bill is
passed via the Legislature.

The bill, which would see any driver suspected of driving under the
influence of drugs or alcohol lose their right to refuse any chemical
tests for alcohol, was cleared by The House Judiciary Committee
yesterday to move forward for debate.

If successful, the bill would overturn a 50-year-old implied consent
law, which allows drivers to say no to blood or urine tests.

While police representatives endorsed the bill, defense lawyer Robert
Moxley argued against the legislation, noting that it was unnecessary
for any competent prosecutor to rely on test results in cases where a
driver is really impaired from operating a vehicle.

“I think this is a Draconian solution to a nonexistent or minimum
problem,” Moxley said, adding that the legislation is
unconstitutional.

The following recent CNN report highlights how the program has also
been adopted in Utah, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Louisiana
and Florida:

snip

-------------

Note the auto-industry shill who says drunk driving is a non-existent
problem!!! Biggest problem we have in america.

On 1/18/2011 1:52 PM, Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are Murderers wrote:
>
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/%e2%80%9...ationwide.html
>
> ‘No Refusal’ Blood Test Checkpoint Program Continues To Expand
> Nationwide
>
> Wyoming latest state to introduce legislation mandating driver
> compliance
>
> Tuesday, Jan 18th, 2011
>
> Wyoming will become the latest in a string of states to mandate
> drivers to submit to blood tests at DUI checkpoints if a new bill is
> passed via the Legislature.
>
> The bill, which would see any driver suspected of driving under the
> influence of drugs or alcohol lose their right to refuse any chemical
> tests for alcohol, was cleared by The House Judiciary Committee
> yesterday to move forward for debate.
>
> If successful, the bill would overturn a 50-year-old implied consent
> law, which allows drivers to say no to blood or urine tests.
>
> While police representatives endorsed the bill, defense lawyer Robert
> Moxley argued against the legislation, noting that it was unnecessary
> for any competent prosecutor to rely on test results in cases where a
> driver is really impaired from operating a vehicle.
>
> “I think this is a Draconian solution to a nonexistent or minimum
> problem,” Moxley said, adding that the legislation is
> unconstitutional.
>
> The following recent CNN report highlights how the program has also
> been adopted in Utah, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Louisiana
> and Florida:
>
> snip
>
> -------------
>
> Note the auto-industry shill who says drunk driving is a non-existent
> problem!!! Biggest problem we have in america.
>
Not too many LEOs thought Phlebotomy as part of their job description.
This measure really does overstep the bounds set by our Constitution.

On Jan 18, 2:53*pm, Lil Abner > wrote:
> >
> Not too many LEOs thought Phlebotomy as part of their job description.
> This measure really does overstep the bounds set by our Constitution.

It's still not as bad as what people are forced to go thru at
airports. And the threat of terrorism is far less than the threat of
drunk drivers.

BTW - i drive every day and have never in my life been tested in any
way for DUI. About the only way to get pulled over for drunk driving
is to actually be so.

In article
>,
Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
> wrote:

> On Jan 18, 2:53*pm, Lil Abner > wrote:
> > >
> > Not too many LEOs thought Phlebotomy as part of their job description.
> > This measure really does overstep the bounds set by our Constitution.
>
> It's still not as bad as what people are forced to go thru at
> airports. And the threat of terrorism is far less than the threat of
> drunk drivers.
>
> BTW - i drive every day and have never in my life been tested in any
> way for DUI. About the only way to get pulled over for drunk driving
> is to actually be so.

How is that a bad thing? <scratching head>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are Murderers"
> wrote:

>
>http://www.prisonplanet.com/%e2%80%9...ationwide.html
>
>‘No Refusal’ Blood Test Checkpoint Program Continues To Expand
>Nationwide
>
>Wyoming latest state to introduce legislation mandating driver
>compliance
>
>Tuesday, Jan 18th, 2011
>
>Wyoming will become the latest in a string of states to mandate
>drivers to submit to blood tests at DUI checkpoints if a new bill is
>passed via the Legislature.
>
>The bill, which would see any driver suspected of driving under the
>influence of drugs or alcohol lose their right to refuse any chemical
>tests for alcohol, was cleared by The House Judiciary Committee
>yesterday to move forward for debate.
>
>If successful, the bill would overturn a 50-year-old implied consent
>law, which allows drivers to say no to blood or urine tests.
>
>While police representatives endorsed the bill, defense lawyer Robert
>Moxley argued against the legislation, noting that it was unnecessary
>for any competent prosecutor to rely on test results in cases where a
>driver is really impaired from operating a vehicle.
>
>“I think this is a Draconian solution to a nonexistent or minimum
>problem,” Moxley said, adding that the legislation is
>unconstitutional.
>
>The following recent CNN report highlights how the program has also
>been adopted in Utah, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Louisiana
>and Florida:
>
>snip
>

Iowa's had the implied consent law on the books for as long as I
can recall. If one gets a driver's license, one consents to being
tested when asked. Failure will mean the revoking of the license for
a period of time.
Mandatory submission might close a loop hole for some.
If someone is driving under the influence, s/he could refuse a
test and have their license revoked for, I think, six months. If they
were driving under the influence, they probably aren't the greatest
respecters of the law, so they'll probably continue to drive.
Once the six months, or whatever, is up, they can drive legally
again. And with no test, a conviction for OWI isn't as assured.

>-------------
>
>Note the auto-industry shill who says drunk driving is a non-existent
>problem!!! Biggest problem we have in america.

There's nothing in your post to suggest Moxley is connected to
the auto-industry. In fact, your quote states he's a defense lawyer.

--

I did an unbelievable amount of work in the yard. It's amazing what I
can do when my wife puts my mind to it.

S4B spewed:

>BTW - i drive every day and have never in my life been tested in any
>way for DUI. About the only way to get pulled over for drunk driving
>is to actually be so.

Yet another american (sic) ignoramus who has no clue what a,
"checkpoint," is.

--
"I love this country and the freedoms we used to have."
--George Carlin

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:42:10 -0600, Kent Wills >
wrote:

> Iowa's had the implied consent law on the books for as long as I
>can recall. If one gets a driver's license, one consents to being
>tested when asked. Failure will mean the revoking of the license for
>a period of time.

Usually implied consent laws meant blowing into a breathalyzer or
walking the white line or something similar; not Barney Fife shoving a
needle into one's arm like these fascists are doing now.

--
"I love this country and the freedoms we used to have."
--George Carlin

On Jan 19, 6:42*pm, Kent Wills > wrote:
> At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are Murderers"
>
>
> >Note the auto-industry shill who says drunk driving is a non-existent
> >problem!!! *Biggest problem we have in america.
>
> * * *There's nothing in your post to suggest Moxley is connected to
> the auto-industry. *In fact, your quote states he's a defense lawyer.
>

The fact that he says drunk driving is a non-existent problem
certainly suggests (though not prove) he's an auto industry shill. If
GM had it's way we'd return to the 1950s when nobody cared about drunk
driving and vehicle violence was much worse than now. Car crashes
mean car sales.

On Jan 19, 11:42*pm, necromancer
<Zidane's_Last_Red_Card@worldofnecromancer_no_spam _no_way.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:42:10 -0600, Kent Wills >
> wrote:
>
> > * Iowa's had the implied consent law on the books for as long as I
> >can recall. *If one gets a driver's license, one consents to being
> >tested when asked. *Failure will mean the revoking of the license for
> >a period of time.
>
> Usually implied consent laws meant blowing into a breathalyzer or
> walking the white line or something similar; not Barney Fife shoving a
> needle into one's arm like these fascists are doing now.
>

And yet you accept being x-rayed and cancerized when you board a plane
even though terrorism is a much much smaller problem than drunk
driving.

At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY
PSYCHOPATHS" > wrote:

>On Jan 19, 6:42*pm, Kent Wills > wrote:
>> At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are Murderers"
>>
>>
>> >Note the auto-industry shill who says drunk driving is a non-existent
>> >problem!!! *Biggest problem we have in america.
>>
>> * * *There's nothing in your post to suggest Moxley is connected to
>> the auto-industry. *In fact, your quote states he's a defense lawyer.
>>
>
>The fact that he says drunk driving is a non-existent problem
>certainly suggests (though not prove) he's an auto industry shill. If

It does no such thing. It only shows he's in denial regarding
drunk driving.

>GM had it's way we'd return to the 1950s when nobody cared about drunk
>driving and vehicle violence was much worse than now.

Please offer your evidence for such.

>Car crashes
>mean car sales.

Car sales mean car sales.

--
Nessun maggior dolore
Che ricordarsi del tempo felice
Nella miseria.