[exelant]

Ditto, I take tags off cars almost every day. Most of the time its because they dont belong on the car listed.

Lol, not much need to remove tags that do belong on the vehicle - you just put the whole thing in impound, problem solved! Haha.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Vsp1140]

Lol, not much need to remove tags that do belong on the vehicle - you just put the whole thing in impound, problem solved! Haha.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Va law wont let me impound it, I can tow it off the road and take the tags but if its not stolen I cant impound it.

[Road_Dog40]

Soooo......Is anyone going to answer my question? ^

Felt compelled to reply since we had discussed this earlier.
Like VSP said, it makes no difference.
I am an hourly employee so it doesn't matter if I write 1 ticket or 1000 a year.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Diesel984]

MY TURN! LOL

Okay, lemme be the first to say that Vinnie...You've got about as much sense as a jail house lawyer...I hear comments like yours from the inmates in my facility DAILY...Did you do time somewhere, or are you seriously thinking that every cop is out to get you?! First you talk about a road block for DUI enforcement...Yup, if you don't answer our questions...You'll be doing roadsides...And if you refuse...Well, there's this law called EXPRESSED CONSENT...Ya should check it out! Cuz that's an instant buh bye license if ya REFUSE to take either the blood or breath test...Pretty cool law...Good reading too!

Then Speeding?! Did you get popped with an HTO charge?! Come on now...I've not been this amused since the guy showed on here and TOLD us where he hides his stash! How hard is it to understand for you that we...THE COPS, are here to do a job that not only keeps people with your kind of mentality OFF the streets, but makes sure your ignorance about laws and how to PROPERLY conduct and or ask questions when being questioned by a police officer, doesn't spread to the rest of the general public...

Sad...Just sad.

For the rest of ya, PLEASE don't take anything this guy says seriously...Sure, ask us questions, but don't take his advice...I'd SERIOUSLY hate to see someone who is innocent get in trouble for this guy's idiotic remarks...

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Diesel984]

Your my boy Crent! LOL!
Call it in, I'm not sure about Canadian law, but that COULD land ya in trouble w the cops here in the states if ya did that...

I still think ya need to buy that snowcat that's for sale here...I could seriously see ya rolling around in it! LOL

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[vinnie_dugan]

Diesel you really are showing your ignorance. You can only breathalize with probable cause first off, second off, no I don't need to answer any of your questions. The LEO's on this board are proving my points for me.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[vinnie_dugan]

Oh and how about doing your own research about the laws you spout. For an officer to check someones ID/BAC they have to have consent. Now that consent is determined differently in different situations, but I will explain in regards to a vehicle. according to the law if you start engaging the cop in his questioning, you are consenting to conversation, therefore he has the right to do pretty much anything he wants. Now remember if make it clear you are not consenting to conversation, then he MUST have probable cause or a warrant to legally obtain your BAC. The LEO's on this board are showing severe ignorance of the laws.

And to answer the question you asked, I have spent about half an hour in a jail, and that was in high school during law class. I'm just tired of cops abusing their power and government in general overstepping their bounds, and into my privacy.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[vinnie_dugan]

And what in the f uck do you mean keep people like me off the street? I probably have a cleaner driving record than you. I don't drink and drive, the bars are walking distance to my house. I rarely speed, and I don't do drugs. So you want to keep all those law abiding citizens off the streets? Man I'm glad you're here to serve and protect, you are an ignorant, aggorant enforcer of our law.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[msblueline]

Vinnie... Vinnie... Vinnie,

Yes, you are correct, we do need consent to take a BrAC (breath alcohol Content) sample. And, yes you are correct, we need consent or a warrant to take a BAC (blood alcohol content). On those points you are correct. As far as the answering questions, I don't need your consent (I know, I know, you can keep your mouth closed and we can't do anything about it) I really don't think that is what was meant though. You mentioned that in your state all you need to provide is your DL and proof of insurance, what else do I need? Nothing! Why would I even ask for anything else? Well, if I feel/believe that something doesn't seem right, I can then ask for your registration to verify ownership (yes, you have to provide it. That's why you carry it) anyway, if you refuse on any of it, breath test, field sobriety, information, then that is fine. I will then place you under arrest (LEGALLY) and take you to jail. The law says you can refuse, it sure does, but, it also says there are consiquences for doing so. You are a citizen, yes. You are a human, yes. You also are given a privelage (driving). I can take that away... Yes I can. This is not a power trip, and neither do I think that neither of these officers are on a power trip. I know, for me, that I have the right to do any of that. That is why I am a state sworn officer, given the power by the state to carry out those laws and to charge you with what fits the crime. I think that when you come in here making statements rather than asking questions, you show that you are trying to be something you're not (a lawyer, are you?) Until then, stop trying to give legal advice, or saying what people can and cannot do. You said so yourself. Each state very's. Becareful, because we are all from different states. If I walk up to you out of the blue and ask you for your ID, you HAVE to show it to me. The law says so. Before you reply, read what I said... "Walk" I did not say drive, or stop, or blue light. I can ask for your ID without probable cause and you have to fork it over. Just be careful on some of your statements... Cheer up and stop being so rude. I can hear the anger in your writings. What pissed you off so bad to come here and make statements, and it is not just you. Believe me, you're not the first and you will not be the last. Trying to find everyway to defeat the law rather than help enforce it. I have one question for you. Do you support the police in their efforts? Don't answer blindly. To sum it up, do you support the cause that we do, get DUI's, speeders, reckless drivers, sleepers (as you put it, and yes they are dangerous and they can be charged... Careless driving) those are the basics. Do you suport it?

msblueline

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[vinnie_dugan]

I'm not here tp give criminals advice, I will repeat my position towards them. Take your punishment like a man. All I'm here to do is educate the average man and woman about their rights. Just remember, every law passed is another step on your personal liberties. Let's run with the DUI thing for an example. DISCLAIMER: I am not in any way/shape/form/fashion condoning driving under the influence, its against the law. Now with that out of the way, I am a responsible adult, why does the government have any say in how much I can drink before I drive. I think I'm smart enough to know how much is enough.

The first argument I'm sure to hear is,

"Vinnie, you're endangering other people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

First off, getting behind the wheel at any point puts you in danger, but I guess driving is too convenient priviledge to give up altogether. So only those damn drinkers are dangerous. The fact of the matter is if a drunk driver hits a pedestrian, he should probably be charged with manslaughter/vehic homicide either way, regardless of whether or not alcohol was involved.

I am so adamant about these things, because like I said, our country has overstepped its bounds and I'm just plain tired of it. Sure some criminals may prosper with certain bits of knowledge, but in general the public NEEDS to know the laws and their rights.

I am not anti government, I just prefer small government that let's the people decide how they will act.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[SofaKingKev]

I'm not here tp give criminals advice, I will repeat my position towards them. Take your punishment like a man. All I'm here to do is educate the average man and woman about their rights. Just remember, every law passed is another step on your personal liberties. Let's run with the DUI thing for an example. DISCLAIMER: I am not in any way/shape/form/fashion condoning driving under the influence, its against the law. Now with that out of the way, I am a responsible adult, why does the government have any say in how much I can drink before I drive. I think I'm smart enough to know how much is enough.

The first argument I'm sure to hear is,

"Vinnie, you're endangering other people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

First off, getting behind the wheel at any point puts you in danger, but I guess driving is too convenient priviledge to give up altogether. So only those damn drinkers are dangerous. The fact of the matter is if a drunk driver hits a pedestrian, he should probably be charged with manslaughter/vehic homicide either way, regardless of whether or not alcohol was involved.

I am so adamant about these things, because like I said, our country has overstepped its bounds and I'm just plain tired of it. Sure some criminals may prosper with certain bits of knowledge, but in general the public NEEDS to know the laws and their rights.

I am not anti government, I just prefer small government that let's the people decide how they will act.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

that may well be the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard... are you aware of the ramafications of such behavior? really. think about that. what if your friend/wife/child was killed by a drunk driver? i think you would have a whole different outlook.. that is almost on the verge of disgusting.

[crackgirly]

Wow. Vinnie, you don't like the laws here, you have complete freedom to move to another country. And the police don't make the laws, they enforce them. Why do you have such anger against the police/authority?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[msblueline]

I understand what you mean in what you said. Are you really responsible to get behind the wheel after drinking?

How old are you... Don't answer that, just a retorical question for this next question. Do you remember when the DUI limit was (.10) point one zero? Well, they dropped it to (.08) point zero eight.

Why?

Well study's showed that that much alcohol in the system is dangerous and we as a people start to lose functions as far as thought, reception, reaction. It all slows far below the safe level for a driver on the street.

Yeah some people get mad... Why? Because they don't want to be told what to do.

Why? Because then we feel as if we are not in charge. Why? Because they are BIG BABIES!!!

Well, texting, sleepy, speeding, talking on the phone, all of these are dangerous.

Yes, you might be a responsible adult, but is that (19) nineteen year old who drank (illegaly) at the club (I get them all the time) who drives off a responsible adult. He might be. He has a (1) one year old son, a wife, he's in school and maintains a job to support the family. But he, like you (you said it) doesn't like the laws. Who is the government to tell him he can or cannot drink?

Well, they are just that, the government. And wether we like it or not, we have to adbide by it. It might be that one time that puts that (19) nineteen in prison. The alcohol made him feel he can do it. It gave him that I feel great feeling. But, it changed him at the same time, while driving down the road, blurred vision, song on the radio, talking to his wife (he's on the way home) and he feels great. Then he swerves into oncoming traffic. Alcohol slow everything down. He hits the oncoming car and kills the family that was on their way home from Disney (no they weren't driving tired). His life is now ruined...

That's why there are laws in place. To protect EVERYONE involved.

Sobriety checkpoints.

That is just a quick scenario. I have stopped plenty of 17 (seventeen) year olds through (20) twenty year olds who were DUI.

The laws are also to protect them. I really don't think that there has anything to do with being responsibile.

I have seen to much in my job to just give in to the wim of people not wanting to obey the laws, because they disagree.

Do you have kids... Don't answer that, just retorical. Don't give them any rules. Let them do what they want when they want. Eventually they will learn to not do certain things... But, one time might be to late. (I wish nothing bad on anyone, just an example).

My kids have rules. If they don't like it... Tough! They'll get over it. So will you and everyone else. The rules and laws are to help us learn before it is too late. We might learn the hard way. It might just kill us.

msblueline

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Diesel984]

CRS 42.4.1301.1 EXPRESSED Consent Law

You can Google it for your own state as well...However, this is Colorado's Expressed Consent law...Take a second and read it...

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)Any person who drives any 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 such 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 said test be a blood test, then the test shall be of his or her blood; but, if such person requests that a specimen of his or her blood not be drawn, then a specimen of such 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 such person's breath shall be obtained and tested, except as provided in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a).(II) If a person elects either a blood test or a breath test, such person shall not be permitted to change such election, and, if such person fails to take and complete, and to cooperate in the completing of, the test elected, such failure shall be deemed to be a refusal to submit to testing. If such person is unable to take, or to complete, or to cooperate in the completing of a breath test because of injuries, illness, disease, physical infirmity, or physical incapacity, or if such person is receiving medical treatment at a location at which a breath testing instrument certified by the department of public health and environment is not available, the test shall be of such person's blood.(III) If a law enforcement officer requests a test under this paragraph (a), the person must cooperate with the request such that the sample of blood or breath can be obtained within two hours of the person's driving.(b)(I) Any person who drives any motor vehicle upon the streets and highways and elsewhere throughout this state shall be required to submit to and to complete, and to cooperate in the completing of, a test or tests of such person's blood, saliva, and urine for the purpose of determining the drug content within the person's system 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, DWAI, or habitual user and when it is reasonable to require such testing of blood, saliva, and urine to determine whether such person was under the influence of, or impaired by, one or more drugs, or one or more controlled substances, or a combination of both alcohol and one or more drugs, or a combination of both alcohol and one or more controlled substances.(II) If a law enforcement officer requests a test under this paragraph (b), the person must cooperate with the request such that the sample of blood, saliva, or urine can be obtained within two hours of the person's driving.(3) Any person who is required to take and to complete, and to cooperate in the completing of, any test or tests shall cooperate with the person authorized to obtain specimens of such person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine, including the signing of any release or consent forms required by any person, hospital, clinic, or association authorized to obtain such specimens. If such person does not cooperate with the person, hospital, clinic, or association authorized to obtain such specimens, including the signing of any release or consent forms, such noncooperation shall be considered a refusal to submit to testing. No law enforcement officer shall physically restrain any person for the purpose of obtaining a specimen of such person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine for testing except when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed criminally negligent homicide pursuant to section 18-3-105, C.R.S., vehicular homicide pursuant to section 18-3-106(1)(b), C.R.S., assault in the third degree pursuant to section 18-3-204, C.R.S., or vehicular assault pursuant to section 18-3-205(1)(b), C.R.S., and the person is refusing to take or to complete, or to cooperate in the completing of, any test or tests, then, in such event, the law enforcement officer may require a blood test.(4) Any driver of a commercial motor vehicle requested to submit to a test as provided in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) of this section shall be warned by the law enforcement officer requesting the test that a refusal to submit to the test shall result in an out-of-service order as defined under section 42-2-402(8) for a period of twenty-four hours and a revocation of the privilege to operate a commercial motor vehicle for one year as provided under section 42-2-126.(5) The tests shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having probable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of section 42-4-1301 and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the department of public health and environment concerning the health of the person being tested and the accuracy of such testing.(6)(a) No person except a physician, a registered nurse, a paramedic, as certified in part 2 of article 3.5 of title 25, C.R.S., an emergency medical technician, as defined in part 1 of article 3.5 of title 25, C.R.S., or a person whose normal duties include withdrawing blood samples under the supervision of a physician or registered nurse shall be entitled to withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content therein.(b) No civil liability shall attach to any person authorized to obtain blood, breath, saliva, or urine specimens or to any hospital, clinic, or association in or for which such specimens are obtained as provided in this section as a result of the act of obtaining such specimens from any person submitting thereto if such specimens were obtained according to the rules and regulations prescribed by the department of public health and environment; except that this provision shall not relieve any such person from liability for negligence in the obtaining of any specimen sample.(7) A preliminary screening test conducted by a law enforcement officer pursuant to section 42-4-1301(6)(i) shall not substitute for or qualify as the test or tests required by subsection (2) of this section.(8) Any person who is dead or unconscious shall be tested to determine the alcohol or drug content of the person's blood or any drug content within such person's system as provided in this section. If a test cannot be administered to a person who is unconscious, hospitalized, or undergoing medical treatment because the test would endanger the person's life or health, the law enforcement agency shall be allowed to test any blood, urine, or saliva that was obtained and not utilized by a health care provider and shall have access to that portion of the analysis and results of any tests administered by such provider that shows the alcohol or drug content of the person's blood, urine, or saliva or any drug content within the person's system. Such test results shall not be considered privileged communications, and the provisions of section 13-90-107, C.R.S., relating to the physician-patient privilege shall not apply. Any person who is dead, in addition to the tests prescribed, shall also have the person's blood checked for carbon monoxide content and for the presence of drugs, as prescribed by the department of public health and environment. Such information obtained shall be made a part of the accident report.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[CrentBonway]

Your my boy Crent! LOL!
Call it in, I'm not sure about Canadian law, but that COULD land ya in trouble w the cops here in the states if ya did that...

I still think ya need to buy that snowcat that's for sale here...I could seriously see ya rolling around in it! LOL

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

My wife told me that if I buy it I better be prepared to move into it. LOL i still think it would be a blast driving that around. Snow day? Dad will drive you to school kids!

[Diesel984]

I am so adamant about these things, because like I said,our country has overstepped its bounds and I'm just plain tired of it. Sure some criminals may prosper with certain bits of knowledge, but in general the public NEEDS to know the laws and their rights.

Canada is Just North of us (no offense Crent LOL!) Mexico is South...

How has OUR country overstepped its Bounds?! By requiring you to talk to a police officer when you're being detained for a lawful reason?

Just like Kevin said, Sure...Ya don't have to talk to us when we ask you questions...That's fine, As long as I've got a reason to talk to you...I'll ask you anything I wish pertaining to why I contacted you in the first place...That's why we...THE PEOPLE of the United States...have the amendments in the constitution...If ya choose not to speak to me...Okay!

I would agree, people need to know the laws yes...But you've turned this from a general question, to a battle on what's right and wrong...Laws, written by Man...Is "man" flawless? Nope...Are laws "ammended" when a mistake is found? Yup! No one person is perfect, which means...You got it! Changes to laws CAN happen, and often do...

Just as another put it...If ya don't like the laws that govern our nation...Ya have the right to move to another country...

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[CrentBonway]

Vinne, no offense but respect and common courtesy will get you further initially than knowledge of the law.

[JohnJohnPhenomenon]

I just sit on my money till I'm above the law

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Speedkuff]

I think the main thing is that Vinnie means well and his clients will be able to quote his advice to the Judge at their initial hearing.

And I'm nearly certain that such an august personage will quail upon hearing the said advice/legal opinion and will immediately issue a judgement in favour of Vinnie/Vinnie's client...

Or perhaps the Judge may choose a more traditional approach of waiting for a qualified lawyer....

Give it a rest Vinnie, unless you actually are a lawyer then you're most likely quoting segments of legislation out of context and without reference to stated cases. You may mean well but it's usually a little more involved than that. Thats why lawyers tend to make a fair chunk of money...

[vinnie_dugan]

Please folks, read what I am writing before passing judgement and pulling up articles that directly prove my point. The express consent article states, just as I did, that an officer needs probable cause to test your BAC.

Secondly, I am up in the air about the drinking age. I feel like it encourages underage binge drinking by telling youngsters they can't have it. Now, am I all for their being no drinking age? Absolutely not. The fat of the matter is, if drinking wasn't so taboo for the youngsters, it would change their perception of it. Just look at europe.

Again, don't tell me to move out of this country. It is my duty to speak out against injustices of this country.

With that being said, I am sort of shooting the messenger here, by getting angry at the cops.

I don't hate cops, I just hate some of the laws you guys have to enforce.

Remember as an LEO you can't breathalize without probable cause. So Vinnie is again right about the law, suprise suprise.

Hope this helps

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[southernguy0306]

Why would we wanna breathalize without PC? You are such a drama queen vinnie that has to have the spot light on you. Like it has been said many time if you don't like it then leave. You keep talking about Europe? Then what are you waiting for? Seems like you and Europe are a perfect match.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[southernguy0306]

Believe me when I say this. We run into your type all day everyday. You think you know everything but in reality you only know just enough to get you in trouble. Several people have asked if your a lawyer since your giving out legal advice and I'd guess your just an internet lawyer ugh! You said you were in the Marines for 8 years? I highly doubt that as well seeing as I am a Marine vet myself. Isn't the military part of the government too that's stepping on "your" rights? In reality all you are is just a big baby that has gotten in trouble with the law before and wants to tell everyone about it. I'm now through with your ridiculous post. Like I said before. If you don't like it then either change it or leave.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Vsp1140]

� 18.2-268.2. Implied consent to post-arrest testing to determine drug or alcohol content of blood.

A. Any person, whether licensed by Virginia or not, who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway, as defined in � 46.2-100, in the Commonwealth shall be deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood, breath, or both blood and breath taken for a chemical test to determine the alcohol, drug, or both alcohol and drug content of his blood, if he is arrested for violation of � 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of � 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance within three hours of the alleged offense.

I dont need PC to get your breath...when you drive on the highways of Virginia you by default already agree to give me breath or blood. I need PC to arrest you. There is a difference.

[Silvertree]

Cool idea for a thread. Thanks.

[southernguy0306]

Vsp is correct. Its the same in Ms. When you sign for your license your giving your consent. Its called Implied consent here

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com