Guilty of refusing to test in ohio

[RIDL_Prez]

Actually our membership includes people who drink and people who don't drink. We have members who've had a DUI and members who have never had a DUI. We have members who've never known anyone killed or injured by drunk drivers and we have members who have had friends and relatives killed and/or injured or have been injured themselves by drunk drivers.

What everyone at RIDL has in common is a distaste for the way our constitution has been eroded by a special interest group and their exaggerations and lies. What everyone at RIDL has in common is a love of the rights and freedoms so hard-fought and won by our forefathers and we have a disgust for those who would willingly give up those rights and expect all the rest of us to do so as well.

 

[Veronica1228]

Actually our membership includes people who drink and people who don't drink. We have members who've had a DUI and members who have never had a DUI. We have members who've never known anyone killed or injured by drunk drivers and we have members who have had friends and relatives killed and/or injured or have been injured themselves by drunk drivers.

What everyone at RIDL has in common is a distaste for the way our constitution has been eroded by a special interest group and their exaggerations and lies. What everyone at RIDL has in common is a love of the rights and freedoms so hard-fought and won by our forefathers and we have a disgust for those who would willingly give up those rights and expect all the rest of us to do so as well.

What rights are you talking about? Do you think that people should have the right to drink and drive? That's insane. I don't understand how anyone could be in favor of allowing people to drink and drive.

 

[CdwJava]

Some argue that DUI laws violate a number of Constitutional principles. However, even the USSC has ruled that this is not so in most cases. So, while there may be some who hold the opinion that aspects of DUI laws are un-Constitutional, the prevailing legal opinion is that they are not.

So, the next resort is legislation to modify state laws. Since this is not likely to be a popular action for a politician I just do not see any changes on the horizon ... unless they are to make penalties stiffer, or to offer wider treatment options.

Oh well .. on to the next topic.

- Carl

 

[You Are Guilty]

Some argue that DUI laws violate a number of Constitutional principles. However, even the USSC has ruled that this is not so in most cases. So, while there may be some who hold the opinion that aspects of DUI laws are un-Constitutional, the prevailing legal opinion is that they are not.

So, the next resort is legislation to modify state laws. Since this is not likely to be a popular action for a politician I just do not see any changes on the horizon ... unless they are to make penalties stiffer, or to offer wider treatment options.

Oh well .. on to the next topic.

- Carl

It's funny, you hear the exact same it's unconstitutional "logic" espoused by all the idiots who say it's illegal for the gov't to collect income taxes. And just look how far they've come!

 

[RIDL_Prez]

I don't understand how anyone could be in favor of allowing people to drink and drive.

First of all, it's not illegal to drink and drive. It's illegal to drive drunk or impaired or with a BAC of .08 or above.

As for the constitutional issues I think the words of a skilled attorney best describe these issues better than I can. Please read: http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09#a162

 

[CdwJava]

First of all, it's not illegal to drink and drive. It's illegal to drive drunk or impaired or with a BAC of .08 or above.

As for the constitutional issues I think the words of a skilled attorney best describe these issues better than I can. Please read: http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09#a162

Okay ... one attorney (A DUI attorney) versus the USSC ... hmmm ... still not a winning combination.

A very fine article, by the way, but opinions not shared by the courts.

- Carl

 

[RIDL_Prez]

I'm aware of USSC's decisions. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Abide by the, yes, agree with them, no. Part of the problem is that their decisions have not been based on the constitution, but on the emotional hype they were fed by organizations such as MADD and NHTSA.

Fortunately, it looks like the courts will be changing and maybe some of these issues can be revisited by the USSC. They've been known to reverse themselves in the past haven't they?

I am heartened by the USSC's recent decision that a DUI is not "a crime of violence". You'll notice that MADD deliberately ignores THAT USSC decision. So perhaps there is hope.

So yes, you are correct that the USSC has made many DUI based decisions that they say do not violate the constitution, but we are free to disagree, are we not? In fact, the State of Michigan patently disagreed with the USSC's finding that DUI Checkpoints are constitutional and in Michigan our own state supreme court found them to be unconstitutional and we don't have them here. I believe a few other states followed suit.

The USSC determined in Roe v. Wade that abortions are legal, but that doesn't stop anti-abortionists from protesting and campaigning against a USSC decision, does it? That's all we're doing. Protesting. And hoping to reverse some of these decisions.

None of which means we promote drunk driving, nor do we support drunk drivers. That is just spin that MADDers say to try and stop people from listening to us because we are a threat to their agenda.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

First of all, it's not illegal to drink and drive. It's illegal to drive drunk or impaired or with a BAC of .08 or above.

As for the constitutional issues I think the words of a skilled attorney best describe these issues better than I can. Please read: http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09#a162

YES!!!!!!!! it is illegal to "Drink and Drive".

 

[RIDL_Prez]

YES!!!!!!!! it is illegal to "Drink and Drive".

NO!!!!!! It's NOT illegal to "Drink and Drive".

 

[garrula lingua]

RIDL: Driving is a privilege extended to you, not a right

I drink, but I DON'T drive when I do drink.

No way would I trust myself to time: one & half hrs betrween drinks - I'd be too busy looking for a lampshade.

Everyone in my family shares the same affinity for alcohol and the same happy A**H*** results.
We CAN'T drink & drive & all my relatives know this; if any of us do, we deserve the DUI if we get popped.
WE would be 'impaired' drivers very quickly (Don't have to be "drunk' driver, just 'impaired')

 

[fagettaboutit]

People who don't drive under the impairment of alcohol have no problem with DUI laws, because those laws will never affect them. In fact, some of us think they should be a little more strict!

Oh really? You really think one must drink alcohol before they can be arrested for DUI?

Ask this man if he believes DUI laws will never "affect" him

http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13978005&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=46371&rfi=6

Then ask this person if they believe your statement to be true…
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050512/NEWS01/505120368/1004/NEWS01

How about this man's story?

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/6040.html#

All of these drivers blew .00 AFTER they were arrested.

Need more? Read these stories:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=247682
http://community.lawyers.com/messageboards/message.asp?channelId=&subId=&mId=663360&mbId=116
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=198179

Still not enough? Read this one. It's taken over a year to get his arrest profile off the police website.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories/archive/040219dui.shtml#top

Palm Beach police officer Salvatore Mattino and the village of North Palm Beach are part of a federal lawsuit filed in December, the lawsuit cites that the village and the officer have systematically made bad DUI arrests and maliciously prosecuted them. In a three year period they found 11 cases where Mattino arrested people who were sober. Five of the drivers were jailed – AFTER – they blew 0.00

All of these stories have one thing in common – ZERO alcohol. Ask any one of those people if it didn't "affect" them.

So yes, Virginia you can absolutely be arrested for DUI after drinking ZERO alcohol or taking ZERO drugs. BTW, even after being released for the arrest, it still will show up on your record as "arrested for DUI". A stigma I'm sure you wouldn't mind nor would you mind hiring a lawyer to get it removed.

 

[fagettaboutit]

What rights are you talking about? Do you think that people should have the right to drink and drive? That's insane. I don't understand how anyone could be in favor of allowing people to drink and drive.

Well then, Veronica how can you possibly consider someone an innocent victim after they got into the car with the very person they were drinking with?

 

[Veronica1228]

Well then, Veronica how can you possibly consider someone an innocent victim after they got into the car with the very person they were drinking with?

Am I missing something? Did I somehow engage myself in the argument between you and AHA without my knowledge? As far as I can recall, I made no comments either way regarding that scenario.

Notice how I continue to stay silent on the subject. You'll never know my opinion on that one. Some things will just have to remain a mystery.

 

[fagettaboutit]

RIDL: Driving is a privilege extended to you, not a right

I drink, but I DON'T drive when I do drink.

No way would I trust myself to time: one & half hrs betrween drinks - I'd be too busy looking for a lampshade.

If you're unable to wait 1.5 hours to drive after you have ONE drink, you're right, you shouldn't drink while out with the car keys. There are plenty of lightweight drinkers and there are plenty who aren't. I'm talking one drink here, not five. I get very distracted with more than one passenger while driving. So should I insist everyone only drive with one passenger because of my own inability? Punishment should be even across the board. Because if people think punishment is going to save lives, wouldn't it also save lives for all the other dangerous driving actions caused by sober drivers?

 

[fagettaboutit]

Notice how I continue to stay silent on the subject. You'll never know my opinion on that one. Some things will just have to remain a mystery

Why? You seem pretty vocal (and insulting) on all the other issues. Why the mystery when it's clear that someone is using the innocent victim card to cover up poor judgement? The only true innocent victims of drunk drivers are the ones that had no opportunity to avoid the driver.

What next, we'll start counting the actual drunk drivers as victims? Oh wait, MADD already does that and then sells them to you as innocent victims.