I can't think of one single reason not to take the breathalizer if you have nothing to hide. If you have the right to a blood test, then I don't see why you'd object. If you don't take it, and they force you to take a blood test, then you just created a problem for your self, IMO.

 

Take the dang thing.

 

Better yet...just stay out of Columbus and it's no issue for you. :lol:

You have the right to get council which is what I would recommend, you also have the right to refuse any test. If I drink one beer I wouldn't be under the influence and they would likely smell it, they have no right to take my blood, but if they want to....

And then, you hire Hearsay, get the charge dropped or ammended to something like disorderly conduct, and go on about your merry way. Of course, Hearsay's a little richer, but maybe he'll cut you a break!

And who will reimburse me for the money and time I just lost?

You'll excuse me if I'm still having trouble believing that you truly are OK with any and all forms of police intrusion.

 

 

Trust me, it's rampant today, people disbelieving me. Apparently, you'll be joining the club of people who think they know what I think better than I do. :lol:

How/why, you are going from a checkpoint to child pornography in a home, is beyond my comprehension.

 

You're wanting to envelope all investigative work, into an invasion of privacy without consent.

 

The title of this thread is "Losing our Liberties."

 

You've made yourself very clear that you're OK with checkpoints. You're obviously not alone.

 

I'm asking if the "end justifies the means" mentality is a consistent way of thinking for you OR is it only in the case of drunk driving? I would think that you can't be OK with it in one case and then be able to rationalize being against that mentality in other examples.

How/why, you are going from a checkpoint to child pornography in a home, is beyond my comprehension.

 

You're wanting to envelope all investigative work, into an invasion of privacy without consent.

Taking your blood without your consent IS an invasion of your privacy.

You have the right to get council which is what I would recommend, you also have the right to refuse any test. If I drink one beer I wouldn't be under the influence and they would likely smell it, they have no right to take my blood, but if they want to....

 

 

I'll just tell you, for the record, I'm have 0 tolerance for drinking any amount and driving.

 

If you plan to even have one beer, you shouldn't be behind the wheel, IMO.

 

Non negotiable to me.

Trust me, it's rampant today, people disbelieving me. Apparently, you'll be joining the club of people who think they know what I think better than I do. :lol:

 

I saw that in another thread that people know how you think better than you do. I'm not in that club. I guess its a case of it seeming so obvious to me that I'm shocked that others don't think that way as well especially when we're talking about one of the founding principles of our country.

I'm aware of numerous things, including I have no problem with checkpoints.

If they suspect me of drinking and driving, then do me a favor and take me off the streets.

And if you weren't and they still suspected you and subjected you to all of this?

I'll just tell you, for the record, I'm have 0 tolerance for drinking any amount and driving.

 

If you plan to even have one beer, you shouldn't be behind the wheel, IMO.

 

Non negotiable to me.

That's ridiculous. One beer isn't going to impair anyone, so why so stringent.

The title of this thread is "Losing our Liberties."

 

You've made yourself very clear that you're OK with checkpoints. You're obviously not alone.

 

I'm asking if the "end justifies the means" mentality is a consistent way of thinking for you OR is it only in the case of drunk driving? I would think that you can't be OK with it in one case and then be able to rationalize being against that mentality in other examples.

I state my position and you still can't understand, that I'm okay with it. I have no interest in getting into a home rights discussion, when I'm on my property. This question is about, when operating a vehicle, on county/city/state property.

 

Taking your blood without your consent IS an invasion of your privacy.

It may be, as I have no idea regarding the law. If asked, I honestly don't think it would bother me, if I knew I had been drinking and was still half rational.

 

And if you weren't and they still suspected you and subjected you to all of this?

I've actually never met or heard of an instance, where this request was made, without some substantial reason.

I saw that in another thread that people know how you think better than you do. I'm not in that club. I guess its a case of it seeming to obvious to me that I'm shocked that others don't think that way as well especially when we're talking about one of the founding principles of our country.

 

 

IMO, you make the choice to abdicate your liberty if you're warned in advance that it could happen, and you refuse the breathalizer.

 

It's not like they're storming a building, guns drawn. They've let motorists know they're doing this, so take the breathalizer, or suffer the consequences.

That's ridiculous. One beer isn't going to impair anyone, so why so stringent.

 

You are incorrect. One beer has an effect. Maybe minimal, but an effect. I guess one needs to learn the hard way before they believe me. But, you don't have to be legally drunk to cause great harm.

 

0 tolerence.

The only thing offensive about this, is if someone who is/has been drinking and driving, is not caught and causes an accident.

 

If you smell of alcohol, than I'm sure there will be a request for a test. If you don't, then a driver has nothing to worry about. I'm for it and doesn't bother me.

 

I wouldn't drive if I consumed a teaspoon of alcohol. It's just not worth it to me, so I don't do it. But this is offensive, because the police can insist on this test not because you've driven erratically, not because you smell of alcohol, but just because you have the misfortune or bad timing to drive through the stupid checkpoint. I consider my bodily fluids and vapors to be my private property. I'm not so ready to offer them up without probable cause for the greater good. To me, it's not about whether or not you have anything to hide.

I wouldn't drive if I consumed a teaspoon of alcohol. It's just not worth it to me, so I don't do it. But this is offensive, because the police can insist on this test not because you've driven erratically, not because you smell of alcohol, but just because you have the misfortune or bad timing to drive through the stupid checkpoint. I consider my bodily fluids and vapors to be my private property. I'm not so ready to offer them up without probable cause for the greater good. To me, it's not about whether or not you have anything to hide.

 

 

Only if you refuse the breathalizer.

IMO, you make the choice to abdicate your liberty if you're warned in advance that it could happen, and you refuse the breathalizer.

 

 

Two problems with the above. One, not everyone knows that the checkpoint is taking place. Two, by that same logic, they could post on their website that they are randomly coming into homes to check for (fill in the blank for any felonious activity).

 

I'm not cool with either of those.