Comments on: Yet Another Judge Refuses to Blow

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Sat, 24 May 2008 12:50:47 +0000

Well, I wonder what these judges are going to think of the “No Refusal” program taking place in Peoria and in Kane County… whereby if anyone stopped on suspicion of DUI refuses a sobriety test, they will be detained and a judge contacted to obtain a search warrant. Once the warrant is obtained, the person must either submit to blood and breathalyzer tests, or risk charges of resisting a peace officer, which is a misdemeanor offense as serious as DUI. It will be interesting to see what happens if a judge runs into this situation.

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Sun, 18 May 2008 12:21:33 +0000

At first glance the practice of refusing to blow looks like a case of judges using their authority to get away with something the “average” person can’t.

However, the point of these articles is that this is a legal option open to ANYONE pulled over for DUI. You can choose to accept an immediate penalty (6 month suspension) or take the chance of receiving a harsher penalty later (jail time, fines).

The bottom line is that either way, “you drink, you drive, you lose”… but you potentially lose more if you take the tests.

Of course, let’s not lose sight of the fact that any of these judges (particularly the ones who were seen driving erratically) could have ended up dead or permanently injured or killing someone else if they hadn’t been stopped. Be careful out there!

By: Aaron Chambers

Aaron Chambers — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:32:10 +0000

Hokumboy,

This blog would not be the appropriate place for you to insult my executive editor. Accordingly, I deleted your comment.

If you wish to weigh in regarding the subject of this post, please do. Otherwise, take your comments elsewhere.

By: Linda Grist Cunningham

Linda Grist Cunningham — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:23:30 +0000

But, I am the executive editor of the Register Star. And, if I have a question for my staff, I ask them; I don’t need to do it through their blogs.. And, none of us, including me, post anonymously.

By: Aaron Chambers

Aaron Chambers — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:09:52 +0000

Note to readers: The “LGC” who posted above is not the same LGC who serves as executive editor of this newspaper.

By: thedudeabides

thedudeabides — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:43:52 +0000

You are not required to submit any evidence which may be used to prosecute you, as per the 5th amendment. Your driving rights may be affected in the short term, but that’s a small tradeoff for no DUI on your record.

….nor am I a lawyer. Don’t listen to my advice.

By: Aaron Chambers

Aaron Chambers — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:00:53 +0000

If you read the coverage to which this post links, you will find the answer to your first two questions.

As to your third question, you’re welcome to draw whatever inference you may wish to draw from the actions of judges, as reported by this and other newspapers.

If you’d like a more definitive legal opinion, then you may wish to consult with a lawyer.

I am not a lawyer. I am not offering legal advice. I am a reporter, and I’m reporting on research and observation.

By: LGC

LGC — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:05:43 +0000

So, do these people lose driving priveleges? Isn’t it illegal to refuse the test in itself? In your opinion, is it in one’s best legal interests to not take the breathlayzer? Please, I need the answers to these questions.