No refusal dui check points in tn.

[DaveS]

You can drive drunk on your own property in Tennessee? Because most states I’m aware of drunk driving laws are enforceable on private property. In fact, in many states you don’t even have to be driving; just in physical control of a vehicle.

Here in Clarksville, they will get you the second you walk out of a club and put your key in the ignition and start your car! It's brutal on our military!

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

Edited August 31, 2013 by DaveS

[DaveS]

I suppose the world is just blooming with lowlife cops and lowlife lawyers! Sheez......

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

[tnguy]

Doesn't the fact that when you're issued your license you must agree to those terms negate an argument against implied consent?

 

Just imagine what else they could load up in there if it did. No transportation of weapons in vehicles (loaded or unloaded), no transportation of documents that the government disagrees with the content of (OK, the internet makes that mostly irrelevant these days). You could nullify pretty much the whole bill of rights that way and you'd just have to suck it up because for the majority of the population, the ability to drive is a necessity, not a nice-to-have.

 

Bear in mind that a driving license is not issued at the whim of the state. If you meet their requirements, they have to give you one. In our parlance, that's a "shall issue". I disagree that driving is a privilege and if they tried to make it so, there would be riots in the streets.

[gregintenn]

If I can't drive my tractor drunk on my own property, I'm moving to Costa Rica :)

Me too!!!!

[gregintenn]

Yeah defending the Constitution is such a shameful, repulsive occupation. Look there are plenty of drunk drivers who deserve their punishment, but before you lump everyone into the same category educate yourself on the facts. Do a search on a lady named Annie Dookhan, who's about to go down hard for falsifying lab results. Search the major problems that are going on with the crime labs in Colorado, Seattle and Scottsdale. Innocent people get railroaded because of the cash cow that DUI is for local governments. Prosecutions are made based on assumptions, but science consistently proves otherwise.

As for the low life attorneys, they are the best at what they do. They work harder than their police and prosecutor counterparts (which is why they win and also why they get paid the big bucks), and if it weren't for them the aforementioned rats would never have been caught.

Lawyers. Long time ago there was an incident called the Boston Massacre. British soldiers, despised occupiers and agents of the Crown, fired into a crowd and killed several citizens. Afterward there was outrage in the Colonies. The soldiers had to hang. Not surprisingly, no lawyer wanted to defend them. It would have been crazy to take the case. But one young Boston attorney did, despite the threats and criticism. He won an acquittal for the Captain and none of the others went to jail. His name was John Adams, and he became one of our founding fathers and the second President.

I am a direct descendant of John and John Q. Adams.

[DaveS]

DUI should lead to sale of the vehicle at public auction, with proceeds going to the offender (if no accident involved) or the victim if there is an accident.

Don't you mean the proceeds going to the state? Why reward the drunk POS?

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

[gregintenn]

Don't you mean the proceeds going to the state? Why reward the drunk POS?

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

I dunno, he owned the car? :shrug:

[BigK]

No worries, I was not offended.  I was simply trying to educate you with facts and real-life, professional experience (which, let's face it, I should have realized is impossible on the internet).  But that's cool.  Everyone has their opinions, and I'll just keep being one of those low-lifes (I practice mostly all criminal and quite a bit DUI).  I currently have several high breath/blood cases and I'll be filing motions to suppress on all of them, because that is what clients pay me to do and that's part of the oath that I took.  So yeah, that must make me a real system-abuser and overall sucker of scum.  I just don't know how I can live with myself.

If I was a defense attorney and I kept a habitual drunk driver out of jail and he plows into a minivan and kills someone a few weeks later, I couldn't sleep at night. If the arrest was unfounded and he never had a DUI before or ever again, I'd feel like I was doing good.

I don't spend a lot of time in court, but I hear about a lot of the former cases for it not to be common.

[china coaster]

I have never been through a dui or random traffic stop. I don't drive on holidays or any other time the sheep are out in numbers. Just remember to always vote against government. Keep them guessing. No one working for government should feel secure in their job.   

[crossfire]

 

 

Bear in mind that a driving license is not issued at the whim of the state. If you meet their requirements, they have to give you one. In our parlance, that's a "shall issue". I disagree that driving is a privilege and if they tried to make it so, there would be riots in the streets.

You can disagree all you want. It is a privilege and if you screw up bad enough behind the wheel and they will take that privilege "drivers license" away. 

[mikegideon]

If I was a defense attorney and I kept a habitual drunk driver out of jail and he plows into a minivan and kills someone a few weeks later, I couldn't sleep at night. If the arrest was unfounded and he never had a DUI before or ever again, I'd feel like I was doing good.

I don't spend a lot of time in court, but I hear about a lot of the former cases for it not to be common.

 

Comes with the territory, like a doctor treating a wounded criminal. Pat doesn't decide who is guilty any more than a doctor decides who deserves to live. It's why they have to take an oath.

[tnguy]

You can disagree all you want. It is a privilege and if you screw up bad enough behind the wheel and they will take that privilege "drivers license" away. 

 

And if you go shooting at random people with your gun, they will take that away too. That doesn't stop the RKBA from being a right and not a privilege.

[daddyo]

I'm gonna practice my Voldemort lines, put on a gorilla suit, and go find one of those check points! Anybody wanna film it? I'll give you half of the new Youtube channel :)

 

I'm in!!

[RobertNashville]

And if you go shooting at random people with your gun, they will take that away too. That doesn't stop the RKBA from being a right and not a privilege.

Well; you can want driving to be a right...you can think driving is a right but wanting and thinking doesn't make it so.

I don't believe there is anyting in the Constitution or in English common law or any other U.S. or State code that would support the contention that driving is a right. Further, there is SCOTUS decisions dating bake to the early 1900s; when motorized vehicles were just coming onto the scene in a significant way and quite a lot of case law that would that support that driving is a privledge.

I think a compelling case can be made for a right to "travel' but not a right to any specific mode to transport.

[Mark@Sea]

Don't you mean the proceeds going to the state? Why reward the drunk POS?

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

 

I've got problems with asset forfeiture that directly benefits the party doing the taking.  Don't want to encourage that.

[DaveS]

I dunno, he owned the car? :shrug:

I don't agree. sell drugs out of your house, lose your house. Sell drugs out of your car, lose your car. Commit a hunting/fishing violation, lose your car. Get a DUI..."Sir, here is $15,000 for your car". I don't think so....They're all crimes. Punish likewise.

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

Edited September 1, 2013 by DaveS

[DaveS]

I've got problems with asset forfeiture that directly benefits the party doing the taking.  Don't want to encourage that.

I agree Mark. But it happens with firearms, boats, houses and vehicles (in some cases). Why not DUI?

Sir, taking their license is not working. Take their car and pay them for it, they'll buy another with change left for more beer. Take their car and give them nothing...at least it will give them something to think about.

 

Now I'm not talking the guy who had a beer on the way home from work. I'm talking about the person who is so damn stinking drunk they can't stand up. Better yet, if they are driving on a suspended license from a previous DUI, Take the car, sell it and donate the money to MADD.

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

[npgunner]

[quote name="DaveS" post="1024987" timestamp="1378035544"] I agree Mark. But it happens with firearms, boats, houses and vehicles (in some cases). Why not DUI? Sir, taking their license is not working. Take their car and pay them for it, they'll buy another with change left for more beer. Take their car and give them nothing...at least it will give them something to think about. Now I'm not talking the guy who had a beer on the way home from work. I'm talking about the person who is so damn stinking drunk they can't stand up. Better yet, if they are driving on a suspended license from a previous DUI, Take the car, sell it and donate the money to MADD. DaveS Crack'a American[/quote]Because taking guns from criminals has worked so well for keeping guns away from criminals. Lets apply the same logic to cars now? Really what you should be supporting is common sense legislation to make it more difficult for anyone to get a car. Background checks for car owners. No private sales or trades at the car show. Ban the high capacity gas tanks!! It's for the children! It's for SAFETY!! Edited September 1, 2013 by npgunner

[DaveS]

Because taking guns from criminals has worked so well for keeping guns away from criminals. Lets apply the same logic to cars now? Really what you should be supporting is common sense legislation to make it more difficult for anyone to get a car. Background checks for car owners. No private sales or trades at the car show. Ban the high capacity gas tanks!! It's for the children! It's for SAFETY!!

Sir, you have totally blown out of proportion what I said. Take the cars from the drunks, because taking their license isn't working. That's a great idea though. Run a background check before you sell them a car. See if they can legally drive/buy one.

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

[daddyo]

The whole problem I have with these kinds of roadblocks is that presumption of guilt is present.

 

Why should I have to prove that I am not guilty of committing a crime by submitting to a field sobriety test if there is no reasonable suspicion?

[DaveTN]

A breathalyzer test would require probable cause.

[npgunner]

Sir, you have totally blown out of proportion what I said. Take the cars from the drunks, because taking their license isn't working. That's a great idea though. Run a background check before you sell them a car. See if they can legally drive/buy one.

DaveS
Crack'a American

The point is still the same. Your argument to take cars away from drunks is likely to be at least as ineffective, if not more so, than taking a gun away from a gang-banger. That method has been tried for years and doesn't work; why would you think it would be successful when applied to cars/drunks?

I get that DUI is a problem and presents a very clear and present danger to those of us on the roads. The answer isn't taking away cars or any of that non-sense (just like taking away guns doesn't stop gun crime). The answer is to put some back bone, some meaning back into the justice system and let punishment be punishment. Stop this "early release for good behavior," "nice" jail cells, and "parole" tomfoolery and let a punishment be a punishment. If going to jail weren't a lifestyle upgrade for some people, I think you'd see the criminal justice system actually mean something again.

[three5seven]

Although driving in Tennessee is a privilege, a TN resident doesn't shed the constitutional protections afforded in the Federal and Tennessee Constitutions merely because he or she gets behind the wheel. DUI checkpoints have routinely been upheld by courts, including our Tennessee Supreme Court. In my mind, the implied consent law is valid even though I ind it repugnant. The forced blood drawing is another story. If challenged, I'm not sure it could survive Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution.    

[DaveS]

The point is still the same. Your argument to take cars away from drunks is likely to be at least as ineffective, if not more so, than taking a gun away from a gang-banger. That method has been tried for years and doesn't work; why would you think it would be successful when applied to cars/drunks?

I get that DUI is a problem and presents a very clear and present danger to those of us on the roads. The answer isn't taking away cars or any of that non-sense (just like taking away guns doesn't stop gun crime). The answer is to put some back bone, some meaning back into the justice system and let punishment be punishment. Stop this "early release for good behavior," "nice" jail cells, and "parole" tomfoolery and let a punishment be a punishment. If going to jail weren't a lifestyle upgrade for some people, I think you'd see the criminal justice system actually mean something again.

Could losing your car be a part of the punishment? I don't drink and drive, so such law would not phase me one bit. It's only going to bother those who do. The old saying "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" holds true here as well. Nothing will ever stop people from drinking and driving, but maybe losing a vehicle will work as a deterrent. To make anything work, the judges are going to have to grow some nads and throw the books at these people.

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

[npgunner]

Could losing your car be a part of the punishment? I don't drink and drive, so such law would not phase me one bit. It's only going to bother those who do. The old saying "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" holds true here as well. Nothing will ever stop people from drinking and driving, but maybe losing a vehicle will work as a deterrent. To make anything work, the judges are going to have to grow some nads and throw the books at these people.

DaveS
Crack'a American

I think the real threat of having to spend some quality time with "Big Bubba" in prison for more than 24 hours would be a good deterrent. Oh ... and make prison more like prison. Loose the food choice, the cable, the Internet, the etc.



As far as loosing the car, I think a better idea would be to put a device on the car so it tops out at 20 MPH when driving and a mix tape of Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus plays at near deafening levels while the car is turned on.