I assume that person is talking about blood tests for suspected DUI's.
>"All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given their implied consent to a certified breathalyzer or by a blood sample by their choice, or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent
Like it or not most of the US is oriented around driving and it's basically unavoidable for most adults. Using that as justification to erode everyone's rights feels deeply wrong to me.
Nobody? There are countries other than the USA. I've never heard of signing away rights in respect of blood as a condition of getting a licence. Is this a real thing in the USA?
If you get in a car crash and are suspected of a DUI, in most states you must submit to a breathalyzer or you are presumed guilty by default. Where you live, is that not the case? Or can you get out of a drunk-driving charge by just refusing to blow?
Getting a driving licence and being suspected of drunk driving and causing a crash are two different things. Where I'm from your blood would be drawn after you were arrested for a suspected criminal offence, not just because you had a license.
Yes. If a US cops demands a blood or breath test you basically have no choice if you were driving or you are presumed guilty of a crime and then they pull a warrant for a blood test anyways. The right not to be tested is essencially given up when you sign for your drivers license.
And despite all of that, every lawyer will tell you to refuse a blood or breath test until they have that warrant and strap you down in the hospital to forcibly pull blood.
Many things people do are extremely dangerous and detrimental to society. Not sure that's a great rationale for stripping someone of their privacy.
> You even sign away your rights to the privacy of your own blood when you get a license to drive.
I'm not sure what this is referring to. Is any random government agent allowed to take a DNA sample if you're behind the wheel of a car?
I assume that person is talking about blood tests for suspected DUI's.
>"All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given their implied consent to a certified breathalyzer or by a blood sample by their choice, or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent
Yeah, pretty much. It is called "implied consent".
Like it or not most of the US is oriented around driving and it's basically unavoidable for most adults. Using that as justification to erode everyone's rights feels deeply wrong to me.
If you actually believe this, then please reply here with the start and end GPS coordinates of your last driven commute to/from where you live.
Why would I drive? Like some kind of jerk.
Nobody? There are countries other than the USA. I've never heard of signing away rights in respect of blood as a condition of getting a licence. Is this a real thing in the USA?
If you get in a car crash and are suspected of a DUI, in most states you must submit to a breathalyzer or you are presumed guilty by default. Where you live, is that not the case? Or can you get out of a drunk-driving charge by just refusing to blow?
Getting a driving licence and being suspected of drunk driving and causing a crash are two different things. Where I'm from your blood would be drawn after you were arrested for a suspected criminal offence, not just because you had a license.
1 reply →
Yes. If a US cops demands a blood or breath test you basically have no choice if you were driving or you are presumed guilty of a crime and then they pull a warrant for a blood test anyways. The right not to be tested is essencially given up when you sign for your drivers license.
And despite all of that, every lawyer will tell you to refuse a blood or breath test until they have that warrant and strap you down in the hospital to forcibly pull blood.