Gov getting blood and saliva from people on roadsides

[Irving]

DMV takes your license for a year if you refuse to blow. It's part of your license.

[MarkCO]

I did some research. Apparently, Colorado law requires you submit a breath or blood test if you are arrested for a DUI, UDD, and DWAI, or are a "habitual user" of controlled substances. So you have to actually be arrested. You also have the right to choose the test and it has to be completed within 2 hours.
Colorado law also requires that you consent to a breath test if you have not been arrested. However, this is part of a field sobriety test and Colorado law says you do NOT have to submit to those. In fact the officer should tell you it is voluntary. Maybe some gray area, but the Sheriff deputy and City cop I asked both said they have been trained to state a field test, with a breath test is voluntary. Refusing it, however, probably won’t help if the officer has some other reason to think you had been drinking. Based on that the officer will likely arrest you and then you will be required to take a test under the law.

Seems there are self-incriminating constitutional issues that have bee recognized. So, unless you are arrested, you don't have to consent. I have no tolerance for Drunk Driving and I do want LEOs to have every legal tool at their disposal to get Drunks off the road. We look at the guy who fired a round through the wall in Boulder and crucify him...driving drunk is not that different IMHO.

[merl]

Driving on public roads is not a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked by the state at any time for any reason. (within the standard non-discrimination limits, race, sex, age, etc)

Yes it is BS but there really is no way to fight it.

[MarkCO]

Driving on public roads is not a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked by the state at any time for any reason. (within the standard non-discrimination limits, race, sex, age, etc)

Yes it is BS but there really is no way to fight it.

Bull! You just choose to be ignorant and accept it, as did I at 16. There are multiple court rulings refuting your assertion. My understanding is that once you give up that right and become licensed, you can no longer make that case. But a person who never applies for a license can fight it and win. There are several who have.

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 US 516

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60 U.S. Supreme Court

[MarkCO]

now when you go to a checkpoint and they make everyone do the test you will have no choice. period.

I went and read the laws and such, even talked to some LEO friends, I do not think that is accurate. It might be more expeditious to waive your rights, but the law can not force you to submit without cause.

[merl]

Bull! You just choose to be ignorant and accept it, as did I at 16. There are multiple court rulings refuting your assertion. My understanding is that once you give up that right and become licensed, you can no longer make that case. But a person who never applies for a license can fight it and win. There are several who have.

Thanks for the attack.

Good luck with your court case and enjoy your year without a license.

[MarkCO]

Thanks for the attack.

Good luck with your court case and enjoy your year without a license.

Not an attack, just facts. I put myself in the SAME boat with you. I accepted a license, I therefore have no standing. Why would I lose my license for stating facts. That makes no sense at all.

[lowbeyond]

You have a right to travel. That includes public roads

That some people write some garbage on a piece of paper and stick in in a Holy Book, and that there are thousands of other people more than willing to dress up and stick a gun in your face and steal your $ on the side of the road doesn't change the fact.

Its a lie that has been repeated so much people actually believe it.

State: Driving is a privilege!
Person: why ?
State: Because we said so. See how that works?!?! Hahahha

[lowbeyond]

i dont follow you.

"Starting on Jan. 1, any Colorado driver who refuses a sobriety test will be branded a "persistent drunk driver.""

this says nothing of arrest, being drunk, having the odor of an intoxicating beverage. it says any driver who is told to take the sobriety test is now labeled a persistent drunk driver. wow. so, no 5th amendment, no due process. either comply or you will be removed of your ability to drive. nice.

SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 42-1-102, amend
(68.5) as follows:

42-1-102. Definitions. As used in articles 1 to 4 of this title, unless
PAGE 2-HOUSE BILL 13-1240

the context otherwise requires:

(68.5) (a) "Persistent drunk driver" means any person who:

(I) Has been convicted of or had his or her driver's license revoked for two or more alcohol-related driving violations;
(II) who Continues to drive after a driver's license or driving privilege restraint has been imposed for one or more alcohol-related driving offenses;

(III) or who Drives a motor vehicle while the amount of alcohol in such person's blood, as shown by analysis of the person's blood or breath, was 0.17 or more 0.15 OR MORE grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood or 0.17 or more 0.15 OR MORE grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath at the time of driving or within two hours after driving;

OR

(IV) REFUSES TO TAKE OR COMPLETE, OR TO COOPERATE IN THE COMPLETING OF, A TEST OF HIS OR HER BLOOD, BREATH, SALIVA, OR URINE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 18-3-106 (4) OR 18-3-205 (4), .R.S., OR SECTION 42-4-1301.1 (2).

18-3-106 / 205 deal with vehicular homicide/assault.

42-4-1301.1 is the Expressed Consent Bull Shit

§ 42-4-1301.1. Expressed consent for the taking of blood, breath, urine, or saliva sample--testing
(1) Any person who drives any motor vehicle upon the streets and highways and elsewhere throughout this state shall be deemed to have expressed such person's consent to the provisions of this section.

(2)(a)(I) A person who drives a motor vehicle upon the streets and highways and elsewhere throughout this state shall be required to take and complete, and to cooperate in the taking and completing of, any test or tests of the person's breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the person's blood or breath when so requested and directed by a law enforcement officer having probable cause to believe that the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of the prohibitions against DUI, DUI per se, DWAI, habitual user, or UDD. Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a person who is twenty-one years of age or older requests that the test be a blood test, then the test shall be of his or her blood; but, if the person requests that a specimen of his or her blood not be drawn, then a specimen of the person's breath shall be obtained and tested. A person who is under twenty-one years of age shall be entitled to request a blood test unless the alleged violation is UDD, in which case a specimen of the person's breath shall be obtained and tested, except as provided in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a).

So IOW. If you do not consent to blowing, in effect to give the State evidence, or if you just refuse on principle , or for whatever reason. The State says you are a Persistent Drunk Driver

Why? Because Fuck you that's why. So it is WRITTEN, So it SHALL BE ! The Holy Book of the State is Final. If you have nothing to hide. Blah Blah. People love this shit. If it can save one life.. yadda yadda

Quite frankly, you should refuse everything. From stand on one leg, follow the light, chew gum and rub your belly, recite the pledge of allegiance in Klingon, whatever other idiotic thing they come up with. And refuse to blow.

Then just drive. Whatever.

Why on earth should you be forced to give them evidence? What ever happened to the right against self-incrimination. Oh yea.. We erased that one. Why. Because we (the State) have the guns, and are more willing to use them. IOW FU now hand over your $ ! Oh and BTW, now we will require you to buy this interlock thing from our buddy who happens to sell them.

Fascism at its finest - all under the color of Law. Congrats !

[merl]

Try exercising your right to drive without following the rules (including the licensing rules) set down by the state. See where you and your car end up. When you must ask permission first it is an allowed privilege, not a right.

You can travel on the public roads without driving.