RE: DUI Right to refuse test(s)

[bitor]

RE: DUI Right to refuse test(s)

This pertains to a drivers and suspicion of DUI in all 50 states.

Here is the truth... You have the RIGHT to refuse a breathalyzer test you even have a RIGHT to refuse a blood test AFTER refusing the breathalyzer test you have a right to have a lawyer present during the test. period. You can also plead the 5th amendment too. Al thought there might be penalties for refusing any test, it is nothing compared to what will happen if you take the test(s) and give then all the evidences they need to make you pay for this year after year. If you refuse, then it will not be nearly as bad for you. These are facts of the law and the RIGHTS to not self incriminate yourself.
In short, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT SELF INCRIMINATE YOURSELF!

Now you can argue all you like with me , but these ARE the facts and there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. It will make it harder for them to PROVE that you are drunk beyond the legal limits.
I've seen many cases were it is extremely hard for the courts to PROVE you were over the legal limits. If you refuse all tests then 9 time out of 10 the person gets off the DUI and are charged with much lesser of a charge. ie. reckless operation,etc.

If you get stopped, then REFUSE ANY and ALL field sobriety test!! (blood test, breath test, etc..etc..) IF you have been drinking too much.

These are facts and don't let any friend, police, lawyer , judge or anybody else tell you that you don't have these rights. Refuse ALL DUI test and see what happens. Refuse(Say it three times to them) even IF they say you have to do this. They are lying, you don't have to take ANY test. Also, remember the dash camera is on, so walk and say little to nothing to police officers. Really the only think you have to say is that you refuse to take ANY DUI test.

I'm not avocation drinking and driving...but what I am avocation is YOUR RIGHTS AS A U.S CITIZEN.

I ran across this forum accidentally and what little I read concerned me. I'm a lawyer of 35 years specializing in DUI cases. Even if I wasn't, these laws are basic rights that everybody has in the U.S.A. And can be learned in rudimentary law classes. Take a class and see for yourself.

Best regards and please don't drink and drive,

This forum keeps inserting this state question.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[cyjeff]

This pertains to a drivers and suspicion of DUI in all 50 states.

Here is the truth... You have the RIGHT to refuse a breathalyzer test you even have a RIGHT to refuse a blood test AFTER refusing the breathalyzer test you have a right to have a lawyer present during the test. period. You can also plead the 5th amendment too. Al thought there might be penalties for refusing any test, it is nothing compared to what will happen if you take the test(s) and give then all the evidences they need to make you pay for this year after year. If you refuse, then it will not be nearly as bad for you. These are facts of the law and the RIGHTS to not self incriminate yourself.
In short, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT SELF INCRIMINATE YOURSELF!

Okay, lets stop right here.

In some jurisdictions, tests can be forced upon you. California, for one, has authorized law enforcement to forcibly draw blood if necessary.

Second, the refusal to take a test in ANY jurisdiction will be seen as an admission of guilt.... and may include an additional set of penalties.

Giving a test is NOT considered self incrimination.

Now you can argue all you like with me , but these ARE the facts and there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. It will make it harder for them to PROVE that you are drunk beyond the legal limits.

Oh... the "I don't have to listen to anyone else and am going to put my fingers in my ears" defense.

Did you remember to say, "Neener neener"?

Again, the refusal of the test will be seen as an admission of guilt.

I've seen many cases were it is extremely hard for the courts to PROVE you were over the legal limits. If you refuse all tests then 9 time out of 10 the person gets off the DUI and are charged with much lesser of a charge. ie. reckless operation,etc.

The opposite is true.

Refusal to take the tests will almost assure a conviction.

If you get stopped, then REFUSE ANY and ALL field sobriety test!! (blood test, breath test, etc..etc..) IF you have been drinking too much.

Terrible advice... and legally suspect.

These are facts and don't let any friend, police, lawyer , judge or anybody else tell you that you don't have these rights. Refuse ALL DUI test and see what happens. Refuse(Say it three times to them) even IF they say you have to do this. They are lying, you don't have to take ANY test. Also, remember the dash camera is on, so walk and say little to nothing to police officers. Really the only think you have to say is that you refuse to take ANY DUI test

Just know that refusal is an admission of guilt.

I'm not avocation drinking and driving...but what I am avocation is YOUR RIGHTS AS A U.S CITIZEN.

Did anyone else hear the beginning strings of "America the Beautiful"?

I ran across this forum accidentally and what little I read concerned me. I'm a lawyer of 35 years specializing in DUI cases. Even if I wasn't, these laws are basic rights that everybody has in the U.S.A. And can be learned in rudimentary law classes. Take a class and see for yourself.

You are kidding, right?

Best regards and please don't drink and drive,

This forum keeps inserting this state question.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

You see, a lawyer would know that state law varies so much that making such a blanket statement without a State proviso would be stupid.

I am not saying you aren't an attorney. I am saying that somewhere in the world is the world's worst attorney.

 

[Indiana Filer]

This person claims to be an attorney, yet uses English on a junior high level? I think he's making up his qualifications, and his understanding of (or lack thereof) the law.

 

[cyjeff]

This person claims to be an attorney, yet uses English on a junior high level? I think he's making up his qualifications, and his understanding of (or lack thereof) the law.

No attorney in his right mind would make such a blanket statement over all 50 states.

Especially when it isn't true in most if not all of them.

 

[cyjeff]

Just for the record, the results of the blood alcohol test are considered real or physical evidence, and as such do not receive protection under the Fifth Amendment. Simply put, as the results of the test are not constitutionally protected evidence, refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test is not a constitutionally protected right. Furthermore, statutory language that permits a refusal does not establish a right to refuse a blood alcohol test when requested following arrest for a DUI drinking/driving violation. Such language merely covers a contingency when the cooperation of the individual is not forthcoming.

The Supreme Court has supported this thought process and the laws around the additional charges that may be assessed when refusal is made.

For instance, a refusal in Georgia, my home state, not only gets you arrested and brought to the jail for mandatory testing but carries a mandatory one year license suspension... in addition to any penalties assessed for the DUI itself.

If you like, I can list the Supreme Court cases that make this statement accurate.

You must have been asleep at your desk on "Supreme Court Case" day in law school, huh?

In other words, your post is utter and unadulterated crap.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Second, the refusal to take a test in ANY jurisdiction will be seen as an admission of guilt.... and may include an additional set of penalties.

In Massachusetts, the refusal to take a test cannot be used against you, so cannot be considered an admission of guilt.

However, consenting to a test is a condition of your continued privilege to drive. If you refuse a chemical test, your privilege to drive is automatically suspended for 180 days.

It's a minor distinction, as either way, you're going to lose your license, but refusing a test does not result in a conviction.

 

[FlyingRon]

It's a minor distinction, as either way, you're going to lose your license, but refusing a test does not result in a conviction.

Not in itself, but the BAC is only the per se indication of intoxication. The other observations by the officer is often all it takes to convict you.

 

[cyjeff]

In Massachusetts, the refusal to take a test cannot be used against you, so cannot be considered an admission of guilt.

However, consenting to a test is a condition of your continued privilege to drive. If you refuse a chemical test, your privilege to drive is automatically suspended for 180 days.

It's a minor distinction, as either way, you're going to lose your license, but refusing a test does not result in a conviction.

Interesting.

Are you saying that the officer cannot tell the judge that the driver violated implied consent by refusing the test?

The judge cannot then take that refusal as evidence?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Not in itself, but the BAC is only the per se indication of intoxication. The other observations by the officer is often all it takes to convict you.

There are still plenty of ways in Mass to get convicted of DUI. In fact, testimony of slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the odor of alcohol is often enough.

My point was that in Mass, the refusal of a breathalyzer is not an admission of guilt, and the fact that you refused cannot be brought up in court.

 

[cyjeff]

There are still plenty of ways in Mass to get convicted of DUI. In fact, testimony of slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the odor of alcohol is often enough.

My point was that in Mass, the refusal of a breathalyzer is not an admission of guilt, and the fact that you refused cannot be brought up in court.

Mass has implied consent. Why would that refusal not be allowed to be discussed in court?

Hmm... more research is necessary.

Personally, I think it has to do with those wacky Kennedys....

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Interesting.

Are you saying that the officer cannot tell the judge that the driver violated implied consent by refusing the test?

The judge cannot then take that refusal as evidence?

That's my understanding. I'll go find some appropriate caselaw later.

 

[cyjeff]

That's my understanding. I'll go find some appropriate caselaw later.

Thank you.

I am not disputing your claim... I just want to better understand it.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

From Mass Practice:

Evidence of a defendant's failure or refusal to consent to a breathalyzer test is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding, as it would violate the privilege against self-incrimination under the state constitution.

See Com. v. Delaney, 442 Mass. 604, 609 n. 6, 814 N.E.2d 346, 351 n. 6 (2004)

I'm running out the door. Will double-check these later.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Thank you.

I am not disputing your claim... I just want to better understand it.

I didn't take it as disputing my claim. I know Massachusetts is a little off the wall sometimes.

I remember my reaction when I first heard about forced blood draws.

But remember, out OP, the lawyer, states his advice is good for all states. So we must both be wrong.

Happy New Year!

 

[cyjeff]

I didn't take it as disputing my claim. I know Massachusetts is a little off the wall sometimes.

I remember my reaction when I first heard about forced blood draws.

But remember, out OP, the lawyer, states his advice is good for all states. So we must both be wrong.

Happy New Year!

Same to you!