High costs for refusing breathalyzer test among new Pennsylvania laws for 2018

[MindWars]

Pennsylvania police will have a new financial incentive to make suspected drunk or impaired drivers consent to a breath or blood test even without a warrant under one of several new state laws that take effect this month.
High costs for refusing breathalyzer test among new Pennsylvania laws for 2018


POLICE STATE for the dumb asses..........................
Sheep just don't see their freedom slipping away. See most lunatic lefts miss that key word " Suspect" which gives them the right to pull you over for the hell of it. Once they pull you over . In a court situation it's their word against yours and all they have to say in order to win it is " they suspected" you were drinking, not to mention how taking your DNA/Blood ( blood is your DNA) against your will etc..........................

 

[Wyatt earp]

It won't hold up.in court, they are trying to go around the supreme Court .

 

[TheOldSchool]

maga

 

[Mousterian]

Breath testing for alcohol, and, increasingly, other drugs, is quick, cheap and portable.
Our rights do not extend to imposing unnecessary risk on others. Frequent use of breath testing is a public service, the value of which far exceeds the right to dodge charges and continue to offend, by refusing to blow in the bag.
Other countries have extensive random breath testing programs, which have dramatically cut the road toll.

 

[fncceo]

Every US state already have 'implied consent' laws that suppose anyone, by virtue of operating a motor vehicle on public roads, is giving consent to being tested for drugs and/or alcohol.

In 2016 the SCOTUS affirmed breath tests without warrant to be Constitutional.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. We agree to implied consent when we exercise that privilege.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ Exactly. And when there is nothing to hide in the first place, nobody minds anyways.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[MindWars]

maga

This has been going on waaaaay before Trump buster and this is state by state issue here created by your bum fkr BUSH after 911 some states chose not to do it bu tnow that we are being rolled right into the NSA data collection via facial recognition..............etc everything is going police state it's just most Trump haters were to fkn stupid to see it coming and or happening.

NOTICE the year 2010 Trump was no where in the picture try again............

 

[MindWars]

And you all fail to ask SINCE WHEN DO POLICE BECOME MEDICAL DOCTORS collecting Blood..
that blood is kept and your DNA is entered into a system guilty or not..

In fact most sheep don't even realize that is why they started collecting blood from babies decades ago.

 

[MindWars]

Driving is a RIGHT it's only seen as a privileged by those who like to live in an authoritarian conditions.
Smoking is a RIGHT it's anybody right to smoke if they want to
Eating is right ( but they're making it so you have to have governmental parents tell you what you can or can not eat)

Breathing, wtf do think taxing you to breathe even means. CAP TAX they're taking some of you dumb mother fkrs to breathe based of some bs Global warming scam.

own six cats wtf is anybody tell you , you should own less or more.......................

 

[WorldWatcher]

It won't hold up.in court, they are trying to go around the supreme Court .

The case was Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016)

The court upheld the use of Breathalyzer tests as constitutional, but not forced blood tests which can go beyond just determining impairment.



Birchfield v. North Dakota - Wikipedia

>>>>

 

[MindWars]

And here is another example of a police state :

DUI BLOG: Hospitals Have to Call Police if Patient’s Blood Test Shows .08% Alcohol?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The case was Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016)

The court upheld the use of Breathalyzer tests as constitutional, but not forced blood tests which can go beyond just determining impairment.



Birchfield v. North Dakota - Wikipedia

>>>>

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS...d=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0553&pn=1037

The above link is to the relevant bill. The fines are described in the section located starting on Page 6 under the section "§ 1547. Chemical testing to determine amount of alcohol or controlled substance."

Para (a) indicated chemical tests are breath or blood. To be subject to the restoration you have to refuse BOTH breath and blood tests (i.e. Chemical Tests), if you take the breath test you should be subject to the additional restoration fee penalty.



>>>>

 

[Silent Warrior]

Sorry MW, but driving is a privilege, not a right. It is only seen as a right by those that want to live in anarchy. Many activities are both rights and privileges. Smoking, as something not necessary for your continued existence, is such. You have the right to smoke, but not in any situation that harms others. Eating is a right as it is necessary for existence, but eating at the cost of others is a privilege. Driving is an optional activity, not necessary for your continued existence, and as such is not a privilege under any way of thinking.

 

[Moonglow]

Sorry but I never comply with an order from a pig on the issue...Fuck 'em..

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It won't hold up.in court, they are trying to go around the supreme Court .

The supreme court has no authority to repeal laws. The constitution says so. THINK

 

[Big Black Dog]

My best friend was killed by a drunk driver so anything that can be done to curb drunk driving is fine with me.

 

[rightwinger]

I believe police should have to establish some probable cause to believe you are intoxicated before they can request a breathalizer

 

[evenflow1969]

It won't hold up.in court, they are trying to go around the supreme Court .

The supreme court has no authority to repeal laws. The constitution says so. THINK

I usually do not agree with mind wars or shoot speeders, but I am with them on this. Implied consent is sufficient enough law for DUI adding new is not needed and it is over reach. It is an errosion of our constitutional rights and I want none of it. I sure as hell do n ot want them to be able to collect my DNA with out a warrent. This is a slipery slope that must not be gone down.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It won't hold up.in court, they are trying to go around the supreme Court .

The supreme court has no authority to repeal laws. The constitution says so. THINK

If those laws go against the Constitution, you think


They do it all the time.