Sucking dick can get you out of an arrest in TN...ask Barbie Cummings, George W Bush and his lover Victor Ashe
Didn't the TeeVee Noos tell about the current Prohibition on alcohol in Tennessee and USSA? Do YOU know what to say or not during a traffic stop?
"Strictly speaking, a driver can register a BAC of 0.00% and still be convicted of a DUI. The level of BAC does not clear a driver when it is below the 'presumed level of intoxication.'"
—Tennessee Driver Handbook and Driver License Study Guide, 1990 to 2012
"One of the major defects in many methods of blood-alcohol analysis is the failure to identify ethanol to the exclusion of all other chemical compounds. Thus a client with other compounds in his blood or breath may have a high 'blood-alcohol' reading with little or no ethanol in his body. If you look at the warranties - it is sort of interesting - none of the breath machine manufacturers warrant these things to actually test blood alcohol."
—Lawrence Taylor, attorney at law, DUICENTER.COM, Drunk Driving Defense, 5th Edition (2000)
"Nearly 400 people were convicted of driving while intoxicated in the District since fall 2008 based on inaccurate results from breath test machines, and half of them went to jail, city officials said Wednesday. D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles said the machines were improperly adjusted by city police. The jailed defendants generally served at least five days, he said. Nickles's office has begun notifying the drivers, a move that immediately triggered at least one lawsuit against the District and could lead to requests for expungements, new trials and even deeper skepticism about the integrity of testing. The District's badly calibrated equipment would show a driver's blood-alcohol content to be about 20 percent higher than it actually was, Nickles said. All 10 of the breath test machines used by District police were wrong, he said. The problem occurred when the officer in charge of maintaining the machines improperly set the baseline alcohol concentration levels, Nickles said."
—Mary Pat Flaherty, Washington Post, 400 drunken-driving convictions in D.C. based on flawed test, official says, June 10, 2010
"Nancy Benoit also had a blood alcohol reading of .184, although Sperry said the blood alcohol and drug levels could be affected by the decomposition of her body. 'These (blood alcohol) results are not reliable for interpretation because the amount of alcohol in her system could have all come from the decomposition.'"
—Cindy Morley, Fayette Daily News, GBI: Chris Benoit's son was full of Xanax, July 18, 2007
New DUI Law for 2012 in Tennessee
The Tennessee DUI current law provides that a police officer who has probable cause to believe an individual is driving under the influence, they may request the person submit to a blood alcohol concentration test. If the person elects not to submit to the blood alcohol test they will be charged with a violation of the Tennessee implied consent law and will lose their driver's license for one year.
On May 20, 2011, the Tennessee legislature changed the DUI law starting in 2012. The new DUI law in Tennessee will require that anyone who has a prior DUI conviction, vehicular homicide due to intoxication conviction or aggravated vehicular homicide conviction or any person with a child under the age of 16 in the vehicle at the time, MUST submit to either a blood or breath test if they are believed to be driving under the influence. The new DUI law (HB 715 and SB 1270) states, in part:
“The test shall be performed in accordance with the procedure set forth in this section and shall be performed regardless of whether the driver does or does not consent to the test.”
The new DUI law in Tennessee raises constitutionality questions with regards to whether the forced blood alcohol tests would be admissible at trial. The 2012 DUI law has been submitted to the Governor and will go into effect on January 1, 2012.
HOUSE BILL 715
By Shipley
SENATE BILL 1270
By Beavers
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39; Title 40 and Title 55, relative to driving under the influence.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 55-10-406(f), is amended by adding
the word "or" after subdivision (f)(1), by designating existing subdivision (f)(2) as (f)(4), and by adding the following new subdivisions (f)(2) and (f)(3):
(2) If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of a
motor vehicle has committed a violation of § 55-10-401, § 39-13-213(a)(2) or § 39-13-218, and has been previously convicted of § 55-10-401, § 39-13-213(a)(2) or § 39-13-218, the officer shall cause the driver to be tested for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of the driver's blood. The test shall be performed in accordance with the procedure set forth in this section and shall be performed regardless of whether the driver does or does not consent to the test.
(3) If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed a violation of § 55-10-401, § 39-13-213(a)(2) or § 39-13-218 and a passenger in the motor vehicle is a child under the age of sixteen (16), the officer shall cause the driver to be tested for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of the driver's blood. The test shall be performed in accordance with the procedure set forth in this section and shall be performed regardless of whether the driver does or does not consent to the test.
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 55-10-406(f)(2), is amended by
deleting from subdivision (f)(4) the language “(f)(1)” and substituting instead the language “(f)(1), (f)(2) and (f)(3).”
SECTION 3. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012, the public welfare requiring it.
"Let me start with law enforcement contacts with respect to traffic stops, for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The Fifth amendment of the Bill of Rights states that we are not to be forced to incrimnate ourselves. The actual wording is, you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If you are stopped for suspicion of DUI, these are your rights regardless of the laws of your state. First of all, you are to deny having consumed any alcoholic beverages whatsoever. You are never to admit to having one or two drinks. If you admit to consuming even one drop of alcohol, you open the door to 'probable cause', allowing the police officer to search your car for open containers. Next, you are never to submit to a Field Sobriety Test. You are to refuse to do so. They cannot make you walk the line, they cannot make you balance or anything else. Now when you are arrested, you are to refuse to allow a blood-alcohol test, regardless of what state law 'requires', such as revocation of driving priveleges for a period of time. That's an attempt to compel you to be a witness against yourself. Supreme Court decisions in this area are very specific with regards to your rights as folows: Lefkowitz vs Turley, and the Fifth Amendment, provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, and permits him to refuse to any any other qustions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings."
—George Gordon Law Hour, The Policeman is not your friend - He is your adversary, October 30, 2007
"I saw two officers as before, who rode up to me, with their pistols in their hands, said God damn you stop, if go an Inch further, you are a dead Man, and swore if we did not turn in to that pasture, they would blow our brains out. Major Mitchel of the 5th Regt clapd his Pistol to my head, and said he was going to ask me some questions, if I did not tell the truth, he would blow my brains out. I told him I esteemed myself a man of truth, that he had stopped me on the highway, & made me a prisoner, I knew not by what right; I would tell him the truth; I was not afraid."
—Paul Revere, owner of RevereWare¨, sworn affidavit: "Memorandum on Events of April 18, 1775" (declassified Top Secret), while under arrest (and subsequent escape) from Redcoat martial-law traffic police at Minute Man National Historic Park, Paul Revere Capture Site, on the eve of the American Revolutionary War and kicking off the Battle of Lexington and Concord, against the army, navy and courts of King George III, heriditary dictator of England who attempted "gun control" by an Assault Weapons Ban of defensive 50-caliber muskets and cannon, Paul Revere's Ride, by David Hackett Fischer
"Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. If we are, what are we going to do about it? Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty. Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities. One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers. Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits. Or a policeman will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure. Let's reject the police state."
—Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, MD (R-TX, 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President, Landslide GOP candidate for president in 2008 and 2012), speech in House of Representatives, United States Congress, "Are We Doomed To Be a Police State?" June 27, 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment