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

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MindWars, Jan 2, 2018.

  1. WorldWatcher
    Offline

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,361
    Thanks Received:
    1,354
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +2,108
    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

    >>>>
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. MindWars
    Offline

    MindWars Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    18,277
    Thanks Received:
    4,118
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +18,037
  3. WorldWatcher
    Offline

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,361
    Thanks Received:
    1,354
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +2,108

    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.



    >>>>
     
  4. Silent Warrior
    Offline

    Silent Warrior Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Messages:
    1,460
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +1,553
    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.
     
  5. Moonglow
    Offline

    Moonglow Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    105,684
    Thanks Received:
    9,875
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    sw mizzouri
    Ratings:
    +43,476
    Sorry but I never comply with an order from a pig on the issue...Fuck 'em..
     
  6. ShootSpeeders
    Offline

    ShootSpeeders Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Messages:
    19,081
    Thanks Received:
    2,189
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,243
    The supreme court has no authority to repeal laws. The constitution says so. THINK
     
  7. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    23,151
    Thanks Received:
    5,268
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +6,360
    My best friend was killed by a drunk driver so anything that can be done to curb drunk driving is fine with me.
     
  8. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    145,670
    Thanks Received:
    23,075
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +63,697
    I believe police should have to establish some probable cause to believe you are intoxicated before they can request a breathalizer
     
  9. evenflow1969
    Offline

    evenflow1969 Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    664
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +348
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
  10. bear513
    Online

    bear513 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    33,996
    Thanks Received:
    4,385
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +20,753


    If those laws go against the Constitution, you think


    They do it all the time.
     

Share This Page