Please read this vile propaganda:

They CANNOT simply get a warrant to withdraw your blood simply because you use your right to remain silent or refuse to give them consent. That is why it is called the “OICL”, or Oklahoma Implied CONSENT Law.

The police must first ask a driver, AFTER they are arrested, I might add, whether or not they will consent to a breath or blood test (or other test they use, but breath is most common then blood). The person is already under arrest at this point. These officers are misreading the law. They are using Title 47 O.S. Section 752(B)(4), one of the four ways they can obtain a breath test or draw your blood The first two involve willing consent of the driver, the third involves a forced blood withdrawal if the driver was involved in a fatality accident for which the officer has probable cause to cite the driver for a traffic violation that caused the wreck, or number 4, the one they are trying to use, is via a court order. However, that isn’t the purpose of that statue. The article simply says, “anyone who refuses to give them a breath test” will be FORCED to give one because they will have a judge on hand to sign warrants (ahem, not “court orders” such as the language via the statue, but I am sure the courts will view them as the same thing).

Regardless, if an officer can simply ride around town with a judge and have that judge sign warrants for blood draws whenever someone utilizes their legal right to refuse a test, then doesn’t that make the whole “Consent” aspect irrelevant? If that was the case, then why even say you can refuse to give consent? WHY EVEN ASK PEOPLE FOR THEIR BLOOD OR BREATH IF YOU CAN JUST DO WHATEVER YOU WANT MR. OFFICER??!!! Tell me that Norman Police!!

If you can search me legally anytime you want, then why are you even asking me in the first place? This type of propaganda makes me irate!! People, know your rights!!! You NEVER have to admit to anything, you NEVER have to take any tests!! I always tell people NOT to drink and drive, and I don’t condone getting drunk and driving. But what I do despise are these officers who stop someone just because it is late at night and they go fishing, illegally stopping people just to ask them if they have been drinking. If they admit to it, they are either taking the test or going to jail or both. That is BS!!!

It is NOT illegal to drink and then go drive, it IS illegal to drive with .08 blood alcohol or breath alcohol concentration or higher. Just because someone has been drinking doesn’t mean they are .08 and it doesn’t mean they automatically have to submit to your ever will as an officer. Lastly, and sorry this is so long, but Title 47 O.S. Section 756(C) proves the courts were wrong in Guest v. State, Sanders v. State, and Bemo v. State (my appellate case) when they said you don’t have to be under arrest in a fatality accident before an officer withdraws your blood. Read Section 756 of Title 47. It plainly states that to be admissible in ANY proceeding (trial and preliminary hearings included), it must first be established the blood was withdrawn within two (2) hours after the arrest of the driver. Period. Thank you!

If anyone has questions, please feel free to call me, The Tulsa DUI Guy, at (918) 582-2520.