TexasCHLforum.com

Ah ok. I had no idea what it was referencing.

steveincowtown wrote:I am not willing to give up my 4A rights, no matter whether is comes in the form of sweet mothers pushing illegal searches or LEO's showing up to my door and asking to come in and check things out. No matter what face you put on it, it is wrong. Lets enforce the laws we have, instead of creating new ones.

What exactly is this in response to? Slightly confused...

Regarding stiffer penalties...read intoxication manslaughter.

And for homework - there is technically a way to meet the elements of murder if you kill someone while driving drunk. You have to read the PC but it's not too hard.

Removing penalties for driving drunk is absurd. Work some DWI fatality accidents...

Just because a drunk makes it home w/o killing anyone does not mean that he or she is "OK" to drive. If I start lobbing shots from my AR in random arcs in a populated area, but don't kill or injure anyone, no harm no foul right? And for the person that does get hit, they shouldn't have walked into my bullet's path - I was well within my rights.....

Driving is a privilege.

pbwalker wrote:

Ameer wrote:

reality99 wrote:I don't understand why people are so defensive about talking to an officer. Their jobs are hard enough without people giving them the run around. Regarding consenting to a breathalyzer, if you haven't been drinking you have nothing to worry about.

If you have nothing to hide, why should police need a warrant before searching your house?

I hate the "You've got nothing to hide, so don't worry about it" argument. It's that attitude that further erodes our rights on a daily basis.

I side with you guys here.

Bullwhip wrote: Keep it to dangerous drivers, we have no problems.

With all due respect, how about you do your job, and I'll do mine.

Keith B wrote:

gigag04 wrote:I see what you're saying but in execution it's no different than if you refuse me entry in your home and a judge cuts a search warrant. The warrant is the game changer (if I'm following your post about the discrepancy correctly).

The conflict is spelled out in TTC 724.12 and .13 under the implied consent statute. .13 states you don't have to submit unless you meet the requirements in .012 which is pretty specific.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#724.012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#724.013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm clear now. That needs some rewriting for sure. The chapter does make mention of a search warrant in procedures for handling a blood specimen in 724.017, so I'm guessing there is an understanding in the legislative intent that in light of a refusal, and a lack of a special circumstance requiring a draw, a search warrant may be obtained?

I have no experience with a roadblock type operation. In my neck of the woods we find our DWIs the old fashioned way - find a traffic code violation (even an obscure one), or look for some of NIHTSA indicators of impaired driving to build your reason for a stop. Then it goes from there.

KiethB - I'm going to read over those areas you cited and get back to you.

pbwalker wrote: What evidence do you have to setup a 'no refusal' checkpoint? I am genuinely asking this question...what evidence do you have?

I have no experience with a checkpoint...AFAIK they are still nailing down the case law and legislation regarding checkpoints. Our search warrants all stem from standard DWI arrests. My standard affidavit will include my reason for the stop, what I observed during the stop, and what factors indicated that defendant was intoxicated.

These can include:
Odor of an alcoholic beverage
Red, glassy eyes
Slow, labored speech
Fumbling while retrieving DL/Insurance
Observance of standardized clues on SFSTs
Criminal History regarding DWIs
Statements made by the defendant
Condition of clothing
Presence of bracelets or markings on hands/wrists from bars
Indicators of impaired driving
(and many others)

Here is a link to a publicly available search warrant for blood packet (found via google):
http://www.cityofriesel.com/DWIbloodwarrantbyhand.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These forms are in line with what much of the state is using.

In reference to our earlier deviation from topic (my fault), I'm not offended by your posts, and am happy to hear other opinions. However, often times I feel like subjects in the media are thrown under the bus with little to no facts by people with no first hand experience in doing their job. I have nothing against you whatsoever. I don't feel that a search warrant for blood is a bending of rights. DWI is a serious crime that costs lives every year. The laws passed by the legislature (3 strikes rule, accident rule) are there to protect the general public from intoxicated drivers and the dangers they present.

I am a champion of citizens rights, and respect them in every execution of my job, as do the vast majority of my peers - even when they are publicly accused of the contrary.

steveincowtown wrote:

gigag04 wrote:I see what you're saying but in execution it's no different than if you refuse me entry in your home and a judge cuts a search warrant. The warrant is the game changer (if I'm following your post about the discrepancy correctly).

No disrespect, but following that logic, you would not have any issues if they do a "no refusal" weekend for searching your house?

No refusal equals a blankets warrant in my mind as well. I agree 100% that if their is evidence of a DUI (dash cam video, a recording of slurred speech, etc.) that a LEO should be able to take this to a Judge as evidence, but to simply say that a reason Judge can issue a warrant simply because I was pulled over is no good in my book. If I get pulled over, I most certainly have the right to remain silent and not incriminate myself.

Wrong...as I first said...the warrant must be supported with probable cause...just like any other evidentiary warrant. No refusal weekend means a judge is on call and ready, and you don't have to call through the list and wake up different ones to figure out who is in town and willing to read an affidavit at 4 am. No disrespect taken though, the question was valid. Probable cause is a much higher standard than "he was pulled over." In training newer officers in the warrant procedure, they have had their affidavits kicked back because the judge wanted more info.

pbwalker wrote: Exactly! How long before a judge grants a blanket warrant for "no refusal" entry in to your home? After all, you *may* have some Marijuana in there...

Papers please...

Your general distrust for anything that LEOs do is extremely obvious in many of your posts that I read. In one post you even went after medics...

Because of this, I find it hard to motivate myself to respond to your posts. I feel like much of what I share is first hand experiential knowledge, and your comments above indicate more of a "falling sky" response, possibly based out of fear. Distrust for the government is one thing, I see that frequently, but unless I am reading many of your posts wrong, you take issue with all civil servants.

Back on topic, I feel like there is a general misunderstanding on meeting the standard of probable cause.

I see what you're saying but in execution it's no different than if you refuse me entry in your home and a judge cuts a search warrant. The warrant is the game changer (if I'm following your post about the discrepancy correctly).

PUCKER wrote:"no refusal" just doesn't seem Constitutional to me.

gig - I know what HGN is, but I'm guessing that not every else does, how about a quick primer?

...not constitutional...???? It is an evidentiary search warrant supported by a probable cause affidavit sworn to a judge. Seems like the essence of keeping in line with 4A.

HGN stands for Horizotal Gaze Nystagmus, which is an involuntary jerking of the eyes. The SFSTs are valided and endorsed by numerous medical and professional studies.

In the case of the subject refusing to give a breath/blood specimen, the Ofc can swear out a search warrant for a blood specimen.

No refusal weekends just mean they have a judge staying up to cut warrants.

Our judges are good about waking up so every DWI is no refusal for me. Too much paperwork for people to get off easy.

saltydog452 wrote:Beer or Blue Bell Ice Cream, I can't passs the Roadside Gymnastic Test.

With two different flavors of Arthritis, I couldn't pass on my best day
years ago.

Breathalizer, OK.

Wiggleing my ears while playing Hopscotch with a Maglight shining in my eyes, on uneven ground, nope.

To infer that the tesk is 'skewed' is an understatement.

I beat the rap, but took the ride.

salty

HGN is the most reliable test and is validated for seated positions.