Have not seen this before...

So you are suggesting that you are a law enforcement officer and you're posting questions like your original? That means that from your original post stating you couldn't understand why your license was suspended under implied consent? I find that remarkable being as you are/were a law enforcement officer. What did they teach you at your state's PTI (Police Training Institute)? Or were you deathly Ill the day they taught law's at your PTI?

And now you're a cop & you wish to be a truck driver?

 

I'm wondering just exactly what a state's PTI would teach new law enforcement officers about implied consent???

IS it something like this?



Instuctor: Hello police training students, were going to cover implied consent/comliance today. Unfortunately, in the USA, suspects have these pesky inalienable Constitutional Rights, which CAN and DO hinder us police. Good news, implied consent/compliance laws allow us police to forcibly coerce and or backmail(with repercussions...like suspend licences) suspects who don't fully comply with us gathering information that CAN and WILL be used against them... hopehully getting the suspects to willfully give up their Constitutional Rights.

Instuctor: That's all for today students.... Sieg Heil!

 

I'll play devil's advocate........

I know a little about constitutional rights, specifically when comes to Miranda v. Arizona, Escobedo v. Illinois, et cetera (advisement of right against self-incrimination).

I also know that possessing a driver's license is not a right.....it's a privilege. When you applied for said privilege, you IMPLIED your consent to certain searches to prove your fitness to continue the privilege (field sobriety tests, breath tests, etc.).

I absolutely hate being stopped and asked, "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" Seems like a pretty straightforward inadmissibility issue when finding the answer, even if incriminating (Hell yes, I'm ####faced!). Not so. It's legal to ask and having the answer admissible. Sucks, but see "privilege" again.

 

Why would the powers that be, keep suggesting that driving is only a 'privilege'??? IS it possible that they state driving is a 'privilege', to gain leverage over issues that could be deemed inalienable 'rights' to constitutional freedom? Perhaps to instill conformity, or social obedience?

Consider this, everyone that purchases fuel to drive... pays tax for roads to drive on. Thus, giving people the 'right' to use roads.

If the powers that be want to deem driving a 'privilege'... Then, why should people pay for the infrastructure(via taxes) without fair 'rights' of use or representation?

In other words, why is driving deemed 'privilege' when one must certainly, pay to play?

 

I agree with Driver above. Get a copy of your driving record to see for yourself. If by chance you do have a an issue with it walk into your local representatives office and explain the situation to them. They'll make two phone calls and have it handled with paperwork to prove. (they do it all for an implied vote) America is great!!

 

Where in the Bill of Rights/Constitution does it state you have a right to drive? You have a right to go anywhere you wish. You have 2 legs and may walk.

 

Here we go, the strawman argument... LOL!

The Supreme court decided in Arthur vs Morgan that carriages were deemed personal property or effects. Affirmed later that automobiles are ALSO personal property and or effects in Hillhouse vs United States.

Again affirmed that a soldier's personal automobile was part of his household goods... deemed personal property or effects. U S vs Bomar.

Again, the Constitution states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and EFFECTS..." which also includes lawful travel, and NOT deprived of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (See Amendment 4 and 5)

Clearly it has been established(by the Supreme Court) that automobiles are indeed personal effects. Lawful travel with personal effects is also Constitutionally protected.

Your strawman argument is as silly as saying... "Yup, your free to walk and travel anywhere you wish... just without shoes" (shoes are also personal property or effects)

The powers that be... MAY wish this wasn't so... "Them darn pesky inalienable Constitutional Rights" and/or Police work would be SO much easier if we(police) could all just be/act like the Gestapo.

Sorry try again.

 

OK, ignoring all the extemporaneous bull that has been posted here, and getting back to the point: You are doing exactly the right thing. Tell it like it happened, and let the chips fall where they may.

Much better than getting hired, then having something come up that they company decides you were not honest in your hiring process and fires you.