PDA

View Full Version : TN - First use of "no refusal law" leads to blood being taken from 8 people.




Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 06:04 PM
Yes, you will submit to roadside blood tests.

Yay, freedom.



New Law Forced 8 Drivers To Give Up Blood During DUI Stops Over Holiday Weekend

by TN Press Release Center on July 10, 2012

http://tnreport.com/blog/2012/07/10/new-law-forced-8-drivers-to-give-up-blood-during-dui-stops-over-holiday-weekend/

NASHVILLE — The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security announced the results from the state’s first-ever “No Refusal” DUI enforcement effort which took place in five counties over the July Fourth holiday period. The campaign was a coordinated effort by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, the Governor’s Highway Safety Office (GHSO), local district attorneys, and various local and state law enforcement agencies.

The “No Refusal” enforcement period started at 6 p.m., Tuesday, July 3, and ran through midnight, Sunday, July 8. This special enforcement was effective in selected counties where impaired driving and fatal crashes have increased this year, specifically, Anderson, Bradley, Davidson, Maury and Warren Counties. State and local officials conducted sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols in those counties as well as in other parts of the state.

The “No Refusal” law, enacted this year by the General Assembly, allows law enforcement officials to seek search warrants for blood samples in cases involving suspected impaired drivers. Previously, a suspected impaired driver could refuse a blood alcohol content test and face charges of violating the implied consent law. This new law enables law enforcement to legally obtain blood samples by working with prosecutors and judges throughout the state during the warrant acquisition process.

heavenlyboy34
07-10-2012, 06:09 PM
:eek:

TheTexan
07-10-2012, 06:11 PM
I love the internet. It makes sure I know of every incremental increase in tyranny, and it also makes sure I know that most of the country doesn't give a damn.

tod evans
07-10-2012, 06:15 PM
We're not only electing these legislators we're paying them! :mad:

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 06:43 PM
I love the internet. It makes sure I know of every incremental increase in tyranny, and it also makes sure I know that most of the country doesn't give a damn.

Give a damn?

Pffffttt...

They want it, they embrace it, they condone and support it.

"If it saves just one life!!"

"If you're not doing anything wrong!!??"

TheTexan
07-10-2012, 06:44 PM
Give a damn?

Pffffttt...

They want it, they embrace it, they condone and support it.

"If it saves just one life!!"

"If you're not doing anything wrong!!??"

Indeed. Slipped my mind for a millisecond, thanks for the reminder

MelissaWV
07-10-2012, 06:46 PM
Give a damn?

Pffffttt...

They want it, they embrace it, they condone and support it.

"If it saves just one life!!"

"If you're not doing anything wrong!!??"

It will not end well. No, I don't think people will care that this is being done... until something goes wrong with the collection technique. Hemophilia isn't just a big word. Collection of blood from an unwilling patient can cause all manner of trauma. Improper storage and handling of needles and infected blood (almost all blood is infected with something) can lead to some amazingly bad situations.

At that point, these checkpoints will stop... but what will rise up in their place...?

TheTexan
07-10-2012, 06:47 PM
At that point, these checkpoints will stop... but what will rise up in their place...?

The checkpoints won't stop, they'll just come up with 'solutions' to that problem, like they always do

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 06:48 PM
It will not end well. No, I don't think people will care that this is being done... until something goes wrong with the collection technique. Hemophilia isn't just a big word. Collection of blood from an unwilling patient can cause all manner of trauma. Improper storage and handling of needles and infected blood (almost all blood is infected with something) can lead to some amazingly bad situations.

At that point, these checkpoints will stop... but what will rise up in their place...?

Summary road side executions.

Thanks MADD.

Told you fascists what would happen, years ago.

TheTexan
07-10-2012, 06:49 PM
Oh it's just a blood test, don't you think you're overreacting a bit?




</sheeple>

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 06:55 PM
Oh it's just a blood test, don't you think you're overreacting a bit?




</sheeple>

Anal cavity search.

Bone marrow sample.

Forced organ removal.

Kluge
07-10-2012, 06:58 PM
And these are cops taking blood, not phlebotomists? (Sorry, didn't read article, just skimming.)

TheTexan
07-10-2012, 07:00 PM
Anal cavity search.

It's going to happen, because all a terrorist needs to do to get a bomb past the TSA is to put it up his ass and ask for a pat down

Unless, of course it's happened already. Which seems to be the case just about every time I posit one of these "eventually" scenarios

specsaregood
07-10-2012, 07:10 PM
Anal cavity search.
Bone marrow sample.
Forced organ removal.

Sounds like a dirty one night stand gone all kinds of wrong.

jkr
07-10-2012, 07:15 PM
FROM
MY
COLD
DEAD
VEINS

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 07:16 PM
And these are cops taking blood, not phlebotomists? (Sorry, didn't read article, just skimming.)

I've been following this for a while, after it first cropped up in Colorado.

This is how it works:

Cops set up DUI roadblock.

On the side of the road, (In addition to whatever tanks, APCs, SWAT raiders and other assorted militaria) is a medical trailer, usually run by one of these private drug testing/medical exam firms that private companies use.

Cop drags suspected DUI driver out of car, and, if there is refusal for a breath test or other "difficulty" (like citizen who knows his rights), you are arrested, and they call the warrant hotline to get a rubber stamp warrant to take your blood.

Refusal past that point will guarantee a thugscrum of cops, holding you down while your blood is forcibly withdrawn, probably with a beating and tasing to end your night.

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 07:16 PM
Sounds like a dirty one night stand gone all kinds of wrong.

Involving lots of Russian and Filipino hookers and cocaine.

LibForestPaul
07-10-2012, 07:17 PM
allows law enforcement officials to seek search warrants for blood samples in cases involving suspected impaired drivers. Previously, a suspected impaired driver could refuse a blood alcohol content test and face charges of violating the implied consent law. .
I am SHOCKED....

, that they need a warrant and not just PC!

Kluge
07-10-2012, 07:38 PM
I've been following this for a while, after it first cropped up in Colorado.

This is how it works:

Cops set up DUI roadblock.

On the side of the road, (In addition to whatever tanks, APCs, SWAT raiders and other assorted militaria) is a medical trailer, usually run by one of these private drug testing/medical exam firms that private companies use.

Cop drags suspected DUI driver out of car, and, if there is refusal for a breath test or other "difficulty" (like citizen who knows his rights), you are arrested, and they call the warrant hotline to get a rubber stamp warrant to take your blood.

Refusal past that point will guarantee a thugscrum of cops, holding you down while your blood is forcibly withdrawn, probably with a beating and tasing to end your night.

That could cause a lot of physical damage to a persons veins, along with their other parts. Hope they get sued out the wazoo, but that probably won't happen.

Danke
07-10-2012, 07:51 PM
And once again no one addresses the root of the problem, registering your conveyance with the state and surrendering ownership (title).

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2012, 07:54 PM
And here I thought my rights were violated for being demanded to take a piss test, presumably on the side of the road... I really don't have anything left to say. Edit in one of my last hundred responses for one of their last hundred abuses.

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 08:02 PM
That could cause a lot of physical damage to a persons veins, along with their other parts. Hope they get sued out the wazoo, but that probably won't happen.

Qualified immunity.

Besides, you should have just complied Mundane, then none of this would have happened.

Kluge
07-10-2012, 08:03 PM
Qualified immunity.

Besides, you should have just complied Mundane, then none of this would have happened.

Yeah. They'd say that even in the case of someone with bleeding issues.

I can't stand people.

Luciconsort
07-10-2012, 08:05 PM
well.... won't be going to Tennessee anytime soon. Vote with your feet.

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 08:06 PM
Yeah. They'd say that even in the case of someone with bleeding issues.

I can't stand people.

I'm a people. :(

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 08:07 PM
well.... won't be going to Tennessee anytime soon. Vote with your feet.

Oh, this will be coming to your state and town soon enough, Mundane.

TheTexan
07-10-2012, 08:08 PM
I am SHOCKED....

, that they need a warrant and not just PC!

I don't think you can really call it a warrant anymore. I think you call it a phone call

specsaregood
07-10-2012, 08:09 PM
well.... won't be going to Tennessee anytime soon. Vote with your feet.

The wheel around nashville is connected to most of east side of our country. If you are driving in that region there is a good chance you are going to go through TN.

Kluge
07-10-2012, 08:10 PM
I'm a people. :(

You know what I mean, dammit. I mean most people. Shitheads.

jmdrake
07-10-2012, 08:11 PM
Crap! I didn't even know about this law. :( So much for the idea that a republican legislature = smaller government. :rolleyes:


Yes, you will submit to roadside blood tests.

Yay, freedom.



New Law Forced 8 Drivers To Give Up Blood During DUI Stops Over Holiday Weekend

by TN Press Release Center on July 10, 2012

http://tnreport.com/blog/2012/07/10/new-law-forced-8-drivers-to-give-up-blood-during-dui-stops-over-holiday-weekend/

NASHVILLE — The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security announced the results from the state’s first-ever “No Refusal” DUI enforcement effort which took place in five counties over the July Fourth holiday period. The campaign was a coordinated effort by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, the Governor’s Highway Safety Office (GHSO), local district attorneys, and various local and state law enforcement agencies.

The “No Refusal” enforcement period started at 6 p.m., Tuesday, July 3, and ran through midnight, Sunday, July 8. This special enforcement was effective in selected counties where impaired driving and fatal crashes have increased this year, specifically, Anderson, Bradley, Davidson, Maury and Warren Counties. State and local officials conducted sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols in those counties as well as in other parts of the state.

The “No Refusal” law, enacted this year by the General Assembly, allows law enforcement officials to seek search warrants for blood samples in cases involving suspected impaired drivers. Previously, a suspected impaired driver could refuse a blood alcohol content test and face charges of violating the implied consent law. This new law enables law enforcement to legally obtain blood samples by working with prosecutors and judges throughout the state during the warrant acquisition process.

angelatc
07-10-2012, 08:12 PM
I think I remember Liberty Eagle saying that Texas had this law put into place a year or two ago.

Danke
07-10-2012, 08:12 PM
I'm a people. :(

Ya, it takes a village.

ZENemy
07-10-2012, 08:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDCXzqgD99o&feature=player_embedded#

Kluge
07-10-2012, 08:14 PM
Ya, it takes a village.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portra it_crop.jpg/220px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portra it_crop.jpg

ZENemy
07-10-2012, 08:17 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portra it_crop.jpg/220px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portra it_crop.jpg

LOL

so...a village idiot?

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 08:19 PM
I think I remember Liberty Eagle saying that Texas had this law put into place a year or two ago.

Yeah, and Colorado.

Then the feds got involved.

That fear mongering, conspiracy kook, Alex Jones, was linking to and talking about this over a year ago.

‘No Refusal” DUI Blood Test Goes Nationwide funded on Federal Grant Money

Lone Star Watchdog
Jan 1, 2011

http://www.infowars.com/%E2%80%98no-refusal%E2%80%9D-dui-blood-test-goes-nationwide-funded-on-federal-grant-money/

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution Fourth Article of the Bill of Rights

I really am coming to the conclusion that the States and M.A.D.D.(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) have taken the issue to use drunk driving too far as a way for the state to raise revenue or to take away our God given rights. This nationwide “No Refusal” blood test violates the fourth amendment of the bill of rights because people should enjoy the right to be secure in their persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. That means “hands off my blood”

The no refusal weekend is funded by Federal Grant money from the National Highway Transportation Safety Board to fund no refusal weekends. Even the Austin Police gets federal Grant Money for taking blood on the side of the road with rubber stamp warrants from a judge who stay up all night who just sign a warrant without seeing the accused.

The issue of drunk driving is chasing away business from downtown night clubs and bars from what little patronage they can get in this stagnant economy. I hear from countless people who used to have a beer and drink after work now stay away from many downtown areas because the police have become a predatory force preying on anyone for revenue.

The issue of Drunk Driving is went way too far. Carrie Lightner left her own organization she founded called Mother Against Drunk Driving because the direction the organization it was taking she wanted no part of. I have a problem with “No refusal Weekends”because in Houston Texas is a sanctuary city. How many drunk illegal aliens who are above the legal limit will be allowed to pass through the checkpoints without taking a blood test. If any illegal alien is jabbed with a needle. We will hear cries from the Mexican government for racism.Yes Texas has a high rate of Alcoholic related traffic fatalities. I wonder how many of the percentage is illegal aliens compared to American Citizens.

I think it is time we throw the book at the system. If anyone is accused of driving drunk and the person knows they are not impaired. Exercise the right to a trial by jury and not be at the mercy of a judge who has a business on the side running a Drug and Alcohol School were he sends people to as a punishment. It think it is time to expose the DUI/DWI scam to a jury of our peers. If they just use a video tape. It will be really obvious the state does not meet the burden of proof. I think it is time to use the jury box as a veto against Law Enforcement and the system using an emotional issue of Drunk Driving to squeeze revenue out of the people.

I do not trust these crime labs either. If any of you think all crime labs are like the C.S.I. TV Show. I have ocean front property in Round Rock Texas I want to sell you.Crime labs in Texas have been known to botch evidence to get a guilty conviction and the chain of evidence I find highly questionable with handling blood samples.

If they were really serious about stopping drunk drivers. The National Highway Transportation Safety Board would work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement start deporting illegal alien Drunk Drivers. We hear nothing on this concern. I say tonight this News Years Eve. Stay home or if at party.Sleep over or have a place to stay close by. Take a cab or have a designated driver if you decide to go out. Lets make all Drunk Driving stops be all Illegal Aliens. Maybe the police will wake and see the scam and see they are not allowed to jab them with a needle but have to take ours.

These no refusal blood test need to be challenged. The burden of proof lies with the state to justify probable cause if you are drunk or not. Just because they refuse a breathalyzer test because the calibration is out of whack to make everyone guilty will now force us to have our blood drawn without a warrant not knowing the chain of evidence were the risk of being tampered. Just remember to repeat and say to the officer if they do take your blood for no reason”I do not consent”. We must not allow the system to use Drunk Driving as a way to take our liberties and rights away.

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2012, 08:20 PM
I think I remember Liberty Eagle saying that Texas had this law put into place a year or two ago.
If you refuse a breathalyzer or urinalysis here.. you are automatically taken to jail. If you refuse a blood test in jail.. five of the biggest guards in the jail come in and strap you to a chair to take your blood. And if you refuse that.. well..

http://i.imgur.com/TzmB3.jpg

Keith and stuff
07-10-2012, 08:21 PM
well.... won't be going to Tennessee anytime soon. Vote with your feet.

I did, I did! I moved years ago and don't miss the oppressive government or the heat.


TN Freedom Rankings
#16 Overall
#6 Economic
#39 Personal


Analysis
Tennessee is almost the opposite of left-liberal states like Vermont. It ranks quite well in terms of economic freedom but is among the worst performers on personal freedom. It thus conforms to the frequently misleading stereotype of so-called red states as economically free but socially conservative. By one of our measures, Tennessee has the third-lowest tax collections in the country (8.3 percent of adjusted revenues as a percentage of personal income). It also has a relatively low government-debt ratio. However, it is just average in terms of spending. The Volunteer State is not all that committed to voluntarism in the personal sphere. Taxes on wine and spirits are a bit below average, but the beer tax is extremely high and is the highest in the country. Marijuana laws are strict, though the first offense of “high-level” marijuana possession is a misdemeanor. Gambling is highly controlled, although the state now allows charitable gaming. Tennessee raised cigarette taxes in 2007, but they remain low. Tennessee also banned smoking in restaurants and added restrictions on smoking in bars and private workplaces. Interestingly, Tennessee is much less interested in arresting people for victimless crimes (excluding drug crimes) than other states, but is much more eager to make drug arrests than its peers. Motorist freedoms are restricted; Tennessee added required auto-liability insurance (disallowing self-insurance) to its sobriety checkpoints, primary seat belt enforcement, and helmet laws for motorcyclists and bicyclists. The state also falls somewhat short on education despite homeschooling being expressly permitted by statute. For example, it has mandatory kindergarten, burdensome notification requirements for home schoolers, and other constraints. On the plus side, along with West Virginia and Kentucky, Tennessee has the best gun-control laws in the South. Labor laws are above average, but Tennessee has a prevailing-wage law and its health insurance laws are mediocre. Occupational licensing has gone way too far. Eminent domain has not really been reformed. However, Tennessee has expanded its deregulation efforts into cable television.

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 08:24 PM
RIP Nick.

Still no hint of "justice" in that case.


If you refuse a breathalyzer or urinalysis here.. you are automatically taken to jail. If you refuse a blood test in jail.. five of the biggest guards in the jail come in and strap you to a chair to take your blood. And if you refuse that.. well..

http://i.imgur.com/TzmB3.jpg

Luciconsort
07-10-2012, 08:24 PM
Oh, this will be coming to your state and town soon enough, Mundane.

looks like i'll be going to jail then. actually I'm shocked that MD didn't do this first. this looks right up Reichsführer O'Malleys alley.... i'm a poet and didn't know it.

HOLLYWOOD
07-10-2012, 08:26 PM
The “No Refusal” law, enacted this year by the General Assembly, allows law enforcement officials to seek search warrants for blood samples in cases involving suspected impaired drivers.A here I thought it was just those ignorant people of Tennessee. The Federal Bribery Bill: Highway Funding, Police Funding, Fire Funding, Education Funding, Food Funding(EBT/Food Stamps/Welfare), etc etc

Federal government steals your money to be used against you and borrows even more and stick you and future generations with the bills. But it is the Government workers, you know, the ones that are just smart enough to push the buttons, do the paperwork, and follow orders no matter how wrong/terrible. They are the sellouts for bigger paychecks, benefits, retirement, and a lap of Federal Luxury while you are building up that golden egg at the expense of the middle and poor classes.

specsaregood
07-10-2012, 08:26 PM
I really am coming to the conclusion that the States and M.A.D.D.(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) have taken the issue to use drunk driving too far as a way for the state to raise revenue or to take away our God given rights. This nationwide “No Refusal” blood test violates the fourth amendment of the bill of rights because people should enjoy the right to be secure in their persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. That means “hands off my blood”


The founder of MADD left the organization partly because she said the people now running the org are actually prohibitionists with the ultimate goal of completely banning alcohol.

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 08:26 PM
looks like i'll be going to jail then. actually I'm shocked that MD didn't do this first. this looks right up Reichsführer O'Malleys alley.... i'm a poet and didn't know it.

Oh, you'll go to jail, you can be certain of that.

But, before you do, you will be forcibly restrained and your blood will be taken.

That's what "no refusal" means.

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 08:28 PM
The founder of MADD left the organization partly because she said the people now running the org are actually prohibitionists with the ultimate goal of completely banning alcohol.

That broad's a genius.

Only took her thirty years to figure that out.

Luciconsort
07-10-2012, 08:30 PM
The wheel around nashville is connected to most of east side of our country. If you are driving in that region there is a good chance you are going to go through TN.

doesn't mean I have to use it though. but if I cherry picked states to NOT drive through based on dumbass laws like this I'd sooner just stay home in my own nazi state.... oh, wait... that's pretty much already the case. lol nvm.

specsaregood
07-10-2012, 08:31 PM
That broad's a genius.
Only took her thirty years to figure that out.

Well she said that wasn't her intention when she founded the org, he main intent was education about the subject.

Kluge
07-10-2012, 08:36 PM
Well she said that wasn't her intention when she founded the org, he main intent was education about the subject.

Yeah...perhaps I'm misguided, but I'm not as jaded about AF about her intent.

But then again, the road to hell...is paved with some shit that is shitty.

Luciconsort
07-10-2012, 08:42 PM
Oh, you'll go to jail, you can be certain of that.

But, before you do, you will be forcibly restrained and your blood will be taken.

That's what "no refusal" means. I can refuse!! sure they'll kill me and get the blood, but have a good time prosecuting a corpse. I don't HAVE to do anything but stay white and die. Besides if you want to avoid getting forcibly assaulted with the state's dirty needle then have don't DUI. Sure we should all be able to do what we want and blah blah blah, but DUI is just bad form and shows a fundamental disregard for your fellow man. FWIW in 2002 I did 30 days in jail, paid over 10k in fines and costs and lost my L's for 5 years, blew my knee out lost my job my apt and had to move back home with Mom... it was my 1st offense in DE and I blew a .09BAC in the ambulance. I know it sounds like a country song lol. I would have refused then to had I known then what I know now, and not already restrained.

Luciconsort
07-10-2012, 08:46 PM
I did, I did! I moved years ago and don't miss the oppressive government or the heat. I've almost got my wife talked into moving to NH lol. I'm just trying to light a fire under her ass... her apathy lvl was super high and she's stubborn as a sexy ass mule. but she's comin along

Anti Federalist
07-10-2012, 09:03 PM
I've almost got my wife talked into moving to NH lol. I'm just trying to light a fire under her ass... her apathy lvl was super high and she's stubborn as a sexy ass mule. but she's comin along

No...that sounds like a country song.

Or maybe blues.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT6w0hSgl08

RIP Donald "Duck" Dunn.

His bass work on this track is ass kicking.

Luciconsort
07-10-2012, 09:07 PM
No...that sounds like a country song.

Or maybe blues.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT6w0hSgl08




RIP Donald "Duck" Dunn.

His bass work on this track is ass kicking.

I do love that album... and Dunn killed the bass in this one. good call bro.

dillo
07-10-2012, 11:03 PM
Id be fine with this, but if the BAC comes back 0 then the cop gets fired without pension. Those are my terms.

TheTexan
07-10-2012, 11:21 PM
Besides if you want to avoid getting forcibly assaulted with the state's dirty needle then have don't DUI.

And if you don't want to get your door knocked down by a SWAT team, don't commit any crimes deserving of it...?

Just don't commit any crimes? And the cops will leave you alone?

Have you been in this country long...?

Mani
07-11-2012, 12:12 AM
I don't see the problem here. They are keeping the highways safe. There could be a bus full of children on these roads, and all it takes is 1 drunk driver to slam into and blow up a giant bus full of kids. Are you guys saying you HATE KIDS???

You guys are all evil, soulless bastards. And what's the big deal anyway? It only takes a minute just to get a quick prick and painless drop of blood. If you don't drink, what do you have to hide? I have nothing to hide and the highways are safer.

If it's so inconvenient and you are really that concerned that the government is being abusive and is trampling over your rights then simple, DON'T DRIVE! Use other means of transportation...Like Flying...

http://www.elliott.org/blog/tsa-watch-confronting-an-out-of-control-agency/

Oh wait...nevermind that. Driving and flying are both privileges and if you don't like those means of transportation because your upset the government is groping you and pricking you and prodding you, well stop bitching and TAKE THE TRAIN!

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/27/from-planes-to-trains-tsa-expands-spot-searches-to-union-station/

Oh ahmm...Well...NEVERMIND trains, they suck anyway! So if you really think the government is going too far well STOP your BITCHING and take the DAMN BUS!

http://digitaljournal.com/article/323191

Buses too? Oh well, stop being such a whiny bitch about being groped, searched, pricked on highways, airports, trains and buses!

WHERE the HELL do you NEED to go anyway??? ANd why can't the government inspect what your doing and know where your going, cop a feel and take your blood? That's awfully suspicious behavior to want to resist that....Hmmm..the authorities need to know about YOU.

tttppp
07-11-2012, 12:22 AM
I've been following this for a while, after it first cropped up in Colorado.

This is how it works:

Cops set up DUI roadblock.

On the side of the road, (In addition to whatever tanks, APCs, SWAT raiders and other assorted militaria) is a medical trailer, usually run by one of these private drug testing/medical exam firms that private companies use.

Cop drags suspected DUI driver out of car, and, if there is refusal for a breath test or other "difficulty" (like citizen who knows his rights), you are arrested, and they call the warrant hotline to get a rubber stamp warrant to take your blood.

Refusal past that point will guarantee a thugscrum of cops, holding you down while your blood is forcibly withdrawn, probably with a beating and tasing to end your night.

Why not just take a breath test? Seems a hell of a lot better than getting blood taken.

Anti Federalist
07-11-2012, 12:33 AM
Why not just take a breath test? Seems a hell of a lot better than getting blood taken.

Its also my understanding that the cops use the blood tests when they think there may be a "marginal" breath test.

A blood test holds up better for a conviction.

Of course, there's that whole pesky 5th Amendment thing about not having to incriminate yourself that gets called into question here.

But, somewhere along the line, some court, somewhere said that doesn't apply here.

So, you're right.

Just submit and comply.

It is much easier.

Anti Federalist
07-11-2012, 12:42 AM
Well stated, comrade.

And walking, let's not forget walking.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?382190-CA-San-Fran-considers-adopting-NYC-policy-of-cops-randomly-stopping-and-frisking-people.

Yes, stop and frisk is a needed tool that law enforcement officers must have.

While we're at it, I think maybe, with all this time at home, we need tow watch you inside as well.

Just to be sure, you know.


I don't see the problem here. They are keeping the highways safe. There could be a bus full of children on these roads, and all it takes is 1 drunk driver to slam into and blow up a giant bus full of kids. Are you guys saying you HATE KIDS???

You guys are all evil, soulless bastards. And what's the big deal anyway? It only takes a minute just to get a quick prick and painless drop of blood. If you don't drink, what do you have to hide? I have nothing to hide and the highways are safer.

If it's so inconvenient and you are really that concerned that the government is being abusive and is trampling over your rights then simple, DON'T DRIVE! Use other means of transportation...Like Flying...

http://www.elliott.org/blog/tsa-watch-confronting-an-out-of-control-agency/

Oh wait...nevermind that. Driving and flying are both privileges and if you don't like those means of transportation because your upset the government is groping you and pricking you and prodding you, well stop bitching and TAKE THE TRAIN!

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/27/from-planes-to-trains-tsa-expands-spot-searches-to-union-station/

Oh ahmm...Well...NEVERMIND trains, they suck anyway! So if you really think the government is going too far well STOP your BITCHING and take the DAMN BUS!

http://digitaljournal.com/article/323191

Buses too? Oh well, stop being such a whiny bitch about being groped, searched, pricked on highways, airports, trains and buses!

WHERE the HELL do you NEED to go anyway??? ANd why can't the government inspect what your doing and know where your going, cop a feel and take your blood? That's awfully suspicious behavior to want to resist that....Hmmm..the authorities need to know about YOU.

kcchiefs6465
07-11-2012, 01:05 AM
Why not just take a breath test? Seems a hell of a lot better than getting blood taken.
I don't understand the correlation between a breathlyzer and a blood test. (Besides the obvious alcohol detection) In my state (Ohio) if you refuse a breathalyzer or urinalysis you are guilty (literally) before a trial can be opted for. The "trial," is rather a sentencing. A Constitutional violation if I ever saw one. In an instance of distrust for the just-us system, bent on revenue, and the fact of the lack of calibration, (of their "instruments") one who say, drank two beers, might feel inclined to not self-incrimanate, even if he knows he should be within the legal limits of operating a motor vehicle.

Not only does this eliminate a trial by jury.. in most all states; if not all states. It also eliminates the right to not incriminate oneself. We can all agree that highly intoxicated people should not be behind the wheel. That being said, is the way to combat this with hardly trained officers conducting blood work on scene? (It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it's EMTs.. IMHO) Are they going to consider your blood thinners? Are they going to care about a subcutaneous hemorrhage? A truly slippery slope, to further regulation and further police intervention in your life.

nayjevin
07-11-2012, 03:28 AM
Id be fine with this, but if the BAC comes back 0 then the cop gets fired without pension. Those are my terms.




A Constitutional violation if I ever saw one. In an instance of distrust for the just-us system, bent on revenue, and the fact of the lack of calibration, (of their "instruments") one who say, drank two beers, might feel inclined to not self-incrimanate, even if he knows he should be within the legal limits of operating a motor vehicle.

But 'incrimination' is harmless at that point, just a public servant duly appointed! Or did you mean one might choose to not self-incriminate to those who aim to take blood by force? Far as I know that's only DUI checkpoint officers.

jdcole
07-11-2012, 04:53 AM
Refuse the blood test, tooth and nail. I personally wouldn't care if I got hauled away - I would simply refuse and resist at every attempt. I'm an asshole, though, so we'll see how well that works.

tod evans
07-11-2012, 05:52 AM
Well stated, comrade.
While we're at it, I think maybe, with all this time at home, we need tow watch you inside as well.

Just to be sure, you know.

Such wonderful inventions as kinect, wii, and smartphones provide cameras and microphones at your expense for the governments convenience.

Don't worry though "our government" only has your safety in mind and would never gather information without the proper warrants and just cause.

Gotta protect the children and keep a watchful "eye" out for potential terrorists.:eek:

jdcole
07-11-2012, 06:29 AM
This raises a larger issue - if they can "force" you to give a blood sample, couldn't they then, in turn, "force" you to take part in any amount of invasions of your person? After all, if you have nothing to hide....

tod evans
07-11-2012, 06:35 AM
This raises a larger issue - if they can "force" you to give a blood sample, couldn't they then, in turn, "force" you to take part in any amount of invasions of your person? After all, if you have nothing to hide....

The most logical viewpoint (to me) is that now an average citizen may be forced to submit to an unwanted medical procedure.

presence
07-11-2012, 07:17 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UPw4f1oN7g

It's criminal
There ought to be a law
Criminal
There ought to be a whole lot more
You get nothing for nothing
Tell me who can you trust
We got what you want
And you got the lust

If you want blood, you got it
Blood on the streets
Blood on the rocks
Blood in the gutter
Every last drop
You want blood, you got it

It's animal
Livin' in a human zoo
Animal
The shit that they toss to you
Feeling like a Christian
Locked in a cage
Thrown to the lions
On the second page

Blood on the rocks
Blood on the streets
Blood in the sky
Blood on the sheets
If you want blood - you got it

I want you to bleed for me!

If you want blood, you got it




Every good thread needs a soundtrack.

Mani
07-11-2012, 07:29 AM
The most logical viewpoint (to me) is that now an average citizen may be forced to submit to an unwanted medical procedure.

Like an unwanted implanted chip or device?

Did u just hear that?!? I think it was a big brother orgasm...

tod evans
07-11-2012, 07:41 AM
Like an unwanted implanted chip or device?

Did u just hear that?!? I think it was a big brother orgasm...

Rare blood type.........The prez needs a kidney. :eek:

tfurrh
07-11-2012, 07:54 AM
Can you not even refuse on religious grounds or reasons of conscience?

jmdrake
07-11-2012, 08:00 AM
Can you not even refuse on religious grounds or reasons of conscience?

I don't know of a religion where it's a sin to let someone take a blood sample. JWs believe it's a sin to take a blood transfusion but that's different. And since the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of religion didn't protect the religious beliefs of native Americans to use peyote, an objection to this law on religious grounds likely wouldn't work. And yes, I know the supreme court was 100% wrong on their peyote ruling, but for now we're stuck with it. (Sovereign citizens disagree I'm sure. But I don't even understand how that works.)

tfurrh
07-11-2012, 08:05 AM
I don't know of a religion where it's a sin to let someone take a blood sample. JWs believe it's a sin to take a blood transfusion but that's different. And since the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of religion didn't protect the religious beliefs of native Americans to use peyote, an objection to this law on religious grounds likely wouldn't work. And yes, I know the supreme court was 100% wrong on their peyote ruling, but for now we're stuck with it. (Sovereign citizens disagree I'm sure. But I don't even understand how that works.)

I'm not JW, but the first sentence of the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions#cite_no te-0) says

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits ingesting blood and that Christians should therefore not accept blood transfusions or donate or store their own blood for transfusion.

tfurrh
07-11-2012, 08:07 AM
can anyone find the text of the law? I've looked for 30 minutes.

Matt Collins
07-11-2012, 08:26 AM
And these are cops taking blood, not phlebotomists? (Sorry, didn't read article, just skimming.)See this: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2858&GA=107

Matt Collins
07-11-2012, 08:27 AM
And once again no one addresses the root of the problem, registering your conveyance with the state and surrendering ownership (title).I don't see how that is going to prevent the cops from pulling you over, dragging you out of the car, and taking a blood sample from you? :confused: :rolleyes:

Matt Collins
07-11-2012, 08:28 AM
Why not just take a breath test? Seems a hell of a lot better than getting blood taken.Because the breathalyzers are not as reliable, and if the lawyer is good enough and the circumstances are right, they can get it thrown out of court. Plus if you know what you are doing you can cause false readings on the thing (that can work to your benefit but it can also work to the LEOs benefit too).

Matt Collins
07-11-2012, 08:30 AM
can anyone find the text of the law? I've looked for 30 minutes.

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0715&GA=107




http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=HB0715&ga=107
BILL SUMMARY:

Under present implied consent law, a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe a driver of a motor vehicle has committed an offense of DUI, vehicular assault, vehicular homicide due to intoxication, or aggravated vehicular homicide may request the driver to submit to a test to determine the alcohol or drug content of the driver's blood. Generally, the driver may refuse to submit to such test, but a driver who does so will have the driver's driver license suspended. However, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in the injury or death of another has committed an offense of DUI, vehicular homicide due to intoxication, or aggravated vehicular homicide, then the officer must cause the driver to be tested for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of the driver's blood, regardless of whether or not the driver consents to the test.

This bill additionally requires a law enforcement officer to cause the driver of a motor vehicle to be tested for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of the driver's blood, regardless of whether or not the driver consents to the test, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the driver has committed an offense of DUI, vehicular homicide due to intoxication, or aggravated vehicular homicide and:
(1) The driver has been previously convicted of such an offense; or
(2) A passenger in the motor vehicle is a child under the age of 16.


The SICK thing about this is that it passed the legislature UNANIMOUSLY in both houses:

TN House Votes (http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/BillVotesArchive.aspx?ChamberVoting=H&BillNumber=HB0715&ga=107)
TN Senate Votes


(http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/BillVotesArchive.aspx?ChamberVoting=S&BillNumber=SB1270&ga=107)I feel bad because I could've stopped it, like I stopped the DNA-grabbing bill in 2012, but I was in Minnesota working for Ron and thus unable to pay attention to TN politics. I feel like this thing is partly my fault :(

papitosabe
07-11-2012, 08:46 AM
could of sworn this has been going along in Texas on certain holidays

tfurrh
07-11-2012, 08:52 AM
could of sworn this has been going along in Texas on certain holidays
I think you're right. http://orangeleader.com/breakingnews/x2004678464/Texas-Law-Enforcement-Launches-No-Refusal-July-4th


“No Refusal” means just that. Motorists suspected of driving while intoxicated must provide a breath or blood sample to law enforcement. Should they refuse to comply, law enforcement officials can take the suspect to jail, where a judge then signs an expedited search warrant that calls for a mandatory blood sample to be taken by a qualified health-care professional. Those found to be legally intoxicated (i.e., with a blood or breath alcohol content of .08 or higher) are arrested and prosecuted.


THE LAW PERVERTED!

Kelly.
07-11-2012, 08:56 AM
I've been following this for a while, after it first cropped up in Colorado.

This is how it works:

Cops set up DUI roadblock.

On the side of the road, (In addition to whatever tanks, APCs, SWAT raiders and other assorted militaria) is a medical trailer, usually run by one of these private drug testing/medical exam firms that private companies use.

Cop drags suspected DUI driver out of car, and, if there is refusal for a breath test or other "difficulty" (like citizen who knows his rights), you are arrested, and they call the warrant hotline to get a rubber stamp warrant to take your blood.

Refusal past that point will guarantee a thugscrum of cops, holding you down while your blood is forcibly withdrawn, probably with a beating and tasing to end your night.

do you have any specific info on the colorado part?
i know it is considered assault for a nurse to forcefully take blood without a warrant, so im surprised to hear about roadside trailers/warrants.

any info is appreciated, as i plan to be ready for when i run into one of these. i thought simply refusing to present ID and asking if you were suspected of a crime would be enough to get through them, if i will have blood forcefully removed from me with being a suspect, i would like to know it BEFORE i go through one if these.

thanks in advnace.

papitosabe
07-11-2012, 09:24 AM
so what would happen, if you refuse...you get arrested...they get a warrant...the forcefully draw blood...and then it shows you had 0.0% alcohol?? Could you sue?? If so that would be great.. May take a few unlawful arrests and payouts to have them rethink this bullshit...

sorry, but I still love this guy and his method..



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILqc0DMh84k

kcchiefs6465
07-11-2012, 09:31 AM
The SICK thing about this is that it passed the legislature UNANIMOUSLY in both houses:....


I feel bad because I could've stopped it, like I stopped the DNA-grabbing bill in 2012, but I was in Minnesota working for Ron and thus unable to pay attention to TN politics. I feel like this thing is partly my fault :(
Wow. Your delusions of grandeur are fascinating to read. It's hard to imagine why some people would not like you.

Matt Collins
07-11-2012, 09:50 AM
Wow. Your delusions of grandeur are fascinating to read. It's hard to imagine why some people would not like you.My goal is to bring about liberty, not winning a popularity contest.

And yes, I myself killed the DNA bill in TN that would've taken everyone's DNA upon arrest for a felony. The Lt Governor tried to ram it through, and I made sure he met such resistance that he actually killed the bill himself. I am willing to bet money he has a dart board with my face on it in his office :D

The point being that I've done it before, I could've done it again.

agitator
07-11-2012, 10:02 AM
[/URL]I feel bad because I could've stopped it, like I stopped the DNA-grabbing bill in 2012, but I was in Minnesota working for Ron and thus unable to pay attention to TN politics. I feel like this thing is partly my fault :(

You did such an awesome and instrumental job in getting RP delegates in MN, all is forgiven.

jbauer
07-11-2012, 10:02 AM
How soon till they have an app for that and we're all Id tagged with blood monitoring all in the name of saftey?

What strange times we live in.

tfurrh
07-11-2012, 10:08 AM
How soon till they have an app for that and we're all Id tagged with blood monitoring all in the name of saftey?

What strange times we live in.

I believe that's called a SSN

kcchiefs6465
07-11-2012, 12:26 PM
My goal is to bring about liberty, not winning a popularity contest.

And yes, I myself killed the DNA bill in TN that would've taken everyone's DNA upon arrest for a felony. The Lt Governor tried to ram it through, and I made sure he met such resistance that he actually killed the bill himself. I am willing to bet money he has a dart board with my face on it in his office :D

The point being that I've done it before, I could've done it again.
Another amazing post. You really are a character Matt. Seeing that you are so super-awesome by yourself, do you think that perhaps working with someone else (Ya' know, the other thousands of people with your goals in mind) would add to your super-duper-awesome ability? I know, I know. They would probably just slow you down. Vanity is a sin ya' know? Humility is a virtue. Ron Paul has wakened up more people to the message of liberty than you could ever imagine yourself doing. Do you ever hear him take credit for the movement? No, he hasn't. Okay, I'm done. Nothing anyone could say would change your egotistical delusions of grandeur.

Matt Collins
07-11-2012, 01:10 PM
Seeing that you are so super-awesome by yourself, do you think that perhaps working with someone else (Ya' know, the other thousands of people with your goals in mind) would add to your super-duper-awesome ability?LOLz you are funny. Again, if you were in TN at the time you would realize what I am saying is correct. I saw this before anyone else did, I launched the attack, I made people aware, I organized and mobilized others against it, so I have no problem saying I killed it.

The point to take away from this is that I spent almost no money doing it (a few hundred for some e-mail list servs) and I am not wealthy nor am I in the political class. The reason I tell people this is for encouragement. If I can do this, someone with no money, no connections to the echelon, and no pol sci degree, then anyone else can do it too! We need people to be involved and put in the time and stopping bad legislation can become commonplace.


Nothing anyone could say would change your egotistical delusions of grandeur.It's not delusional, I assure you of that ha ha ha.

Keith and stuff
07-11-2012, 01:20 PM
LOLz you are funny. Again, if you were in TN at the time you would realize what I am saying is correct. I saw this before anyone else did, I launched the attack, I made people aware, I organized and mobilized others against it, so I have no problem saying I killed it.

Thanks for all of your hard work Matt. If you really want to make a bigger difference (and cut your political related pay), you should consider moving to New Hampshire :) We could certainly use someone like you up here. We have already had a couple people move up from TN and become state reps in NH :)

After all, maybe you can still stop a similar law from passing in NH?

tttppp
07-11-2012, 01:47 PM
Because the breathalyzers are not as reliable, and if the lawyer is good enough and the circumstances are right, they can get it thrown out of court. Plus if you know what you are doing you can cause false readings on the thing (that can work to your benefit but it can also work to the LEOs benefit too).

Its still better than getting your blood forcefully taken. There are also urine tests I believe. Whats wrong with checking your urine?

tttppp
07-11-2012, 01:51 PM
Its also my understanding that the cops use the blood tests when they think there may be a "marginal" breath test.

A blood test holds up better for a conviction.

Of course, there's that whole pesky 5th Amendment thing about not having to incriminate yourself that gets called into question here.

But, somewhere along the line, some court, somewhere said that doesn't apply here.

So, you're right.

Just submit and comply.

It is much easier.

Thats not my point. The original post made it appear that cops were stopping people and requiring mandatory blood tests to check for alchohol in their system. Thats not quite the same as it being used as an alternative to breath tests. Being forced to take any test is against your rights in my opinion, but at least you get to pick your poison in this case.

For breath tests that are questionable, are people forced to take blood tests?

jkr
07-11-2012, 02:04 PM
i wonder how many people will have to die before this one gets "enhanced"

Anti Federalist
07-11-2012, 02:06 PM
do you have any specific info on the colorado part?
i know it is considered assault for a nurse to forcefully take blood without a warrant, so im surprised to hear about roadside trailers/warrants.

any info is appreciated, as i plan to be ready for when i run into one of these. i thought simply refusing to present ID and asking if you were suspected of a crime would be enough to get through them, if i will have blood forcefully removed from me with being a suspect, i would like to know it BEFORE i go through one if these.

thanks in advnace.

Here's CO law right now:

In Colorado, a person is guilty of a DUI if he or she operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or one or more drugs, OR he or she operates a motor vehicle as an habitual user of any controlled substance. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42-4-1301(1)(a)-(c) (West 2010).
Affirmative Defense

The fact that any person charged is or has been entitled to use one or more drugs under the laws of this state, including, but not limited to, the medical use of marijuana shall not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this subsection. Id. § 42-4-1301(1)(e).
Implied Consent

A person who drives a 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 the person's breath or blood 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. Id. § 42-4-1301.1(2)(a)(I).
If a person refuses to take or to complete any test or tests and such person subsequently stands trial for DUI or DWAI, the refusal to take or to complete, or to cooperate with the completing of, any test or tests shall be admissible into evidence at the trial. Id. § 42-4-1301(6)(a)(III)(d).
Neither the results of such preliminary screening test nor the fact that the person refused such test shall be used in any court action except in a hearing outside of the presence of a jury, when such hearing is held to determine if a law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe that the driver committed a violation of this section. The results of such preliminary screening test shall be made available to the driver or the driver's attorney on request. Id. § 42-4-1301 (6)(h)(i)(III).
The department shall revoke the license of a person for refusal of test for one year for a first refusal, two years for a second refusal of test and three years for a third or subsequent refusal. Id. § 42-2-126(3)(c)(I).
Generally, an arrested person has no right to consult with an attorney before taking a chemical test. Drake v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., 674 P.2d 359 (1984).
When an arresting officer invokes the sanctions of the implied consent law by requesting the driver to submit to chemical testing, the officer has a corresponding duty to comply with the driver's request for a blood test. People v. Gillett, 629 P.2d 613 (1981).




And here's a weird story from 2007 that popped up in searching:


Highway checkpoint asks drivers for blood, saliva

Travelers outraged by private research group's request
Published: 09/20/2007 at 1:00 AM

http://www.wnd.com/2007/09/43616/

Motorists in Colorado are expressing outrage over a weekend stunt in Gilpin County, about an hour’s drive west of Denver, where highway checkpoints were set up so a private organization could ask for samples of blood and saliva.

“I don’t think they’re authorized to do what they’re doing, and I view it as a gross violation of law-enforcement protocol,” Roberto Sequeira, 51, told reporters for the Denver Post.

He said he and his wife were “detained” for about 15 minutes even after they protested they wanted to get home because of a sleepy child in their car.

Sheriff’s officials were apologizing after they helped set up and run five separate checkpoints over the weekend.

They said workers for the Institute for Research and Evaluation were overly persistent in their demands of innocent travelers.

“It was like a telemarketer that you couldn’t hang up on,” Undersheriff John Bayne told the newspaper.

Sgt. Bob Enney said the deputies’ assistance to the organization involved stopping motorists at the sites along Colorado Highway 119 for “surveys” on any drug or alcohol use. Surveyors also requested that motorists submit to breath, blood and saliva tests.

Enney said several hundred motorists were tested, and some later complained.

Sequeira said he repeatedly asked if the questioners were law enforcement officials and said he was not interested in participating in the study, but still was not given clearance to leave.

He told the newspaper that he and his family were approached by two researchers, and even after his repeated refusals, officials offered his wife, who was driving, $100 to get the couple to take part in a breath test.

“I think it’s very dangerous,” he told the newspaper. “Sometimes at checkpoints, unfortunate things happen.”

PIRE spokeswoman Michelle Blackston told WND the deputies “did not stop” any drivers. “It was a voluntary survey. … Nobody approached them. There were signs saying that a survey was taking place. Nobody waved them down.”

She said she was unaware whether the private organization reimbursed the county for the expense of having the deputies at the traffic sites. The organization’s own researchers get the results of the work, she said.

Also to the newspaper, PIRE officials defended their actions. They said such statistics are important to gauge the impact of laws and enforcement policy. Their questions began over the summer and will continue at other locations around the nation through November, they said.

“We’ve been literally surveying thousands of people,” John Lacey, of the Alcohol, Policy and Safety Research Center, said. It’s through that organization PIRE is doing its research.

He said researchers push a few of those who initially refuse to participate to reconsider – even offering incentives.

“If we don’t do that, the criticism will come out that we had so many who were refusers,” Lacey told the newspaper.

Bayne said a similar study was done in the county several years ago, with no complaints, but he admitted last weekend’s effort was aggressive.

“The people were too persistent,” he told the Post. “Some people didn’t feel it was voluntary.”

Officials with the Colorado chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said the fact that sheriff’s deputies were on the scene, and surveyors wore blue jumpsuits, could have confused drivers.

Sequeira said his family was directed by sheriff’s officials to pull over and he and his wife were greeted by “youthful, college” surveyors.

“We had a 10-year-old in the back who’s tired, we tell them thanks but no thanks, we have to get this child back home to bed,” he told the paper. But the workers persisted, telling them they would be provided help driving home if needed. Then they offered the $100.

“We say, ‘No thank you, we have to get our child home,’” he recalled. “At this point, both clones start chortling at us and ridiculing us.”

On a newspaper forum, the opinion was running fairly close to unison:

“The very act of pulling a motorist over subjects him/her and their vehicle (at very least) to a visual search. This means if the motorist was pulled over without suspicion of violating a law, than (sic) they have been subjected to an unlawful search…,” wrote Warren Gregory.

“For the record the proper response to ANY such incursion into privacy is to ask the question, Am I under Arrest? If the answer is no ask if you are free to go. If you are told no demand to be arrested or you will leave and then leave,” added Frank Vicek.

Matt Collins
07-11-2012, 02:50 PM
Whats wrong with checking your urine?See the 4th Amendment.

Matt Collins
07-11-2012, 02:50 PM
Thanks for all of your hard work Matt. If you really want to make a bigger difference (and cut your political related pay), you should consider moving to New Hampshire :) We could certainly use someone like you up here. We have already had a couple people move up from TN and become state reps in NH :)

After all, maybe you can still stop a similar law from passing in NH?I hate the cold weather to be honest.

Anti Federalist
07-11-2012, 02:54 PM
I hate the cold weather to be honest.

Good grief.

That's what coats, hats and long johns are for.

Anti Federalist
07-11-2012, 02:57 PM
For breath tests that are questionable, are people forced to take blood tests?

I believe so, yes.

But the larger point is the right to refuse any test, as is your Fifth Amendment right, "implied consent" laws notwithstanding.

That is no longer an option.

You will be tested, if you must be physically strapped down and forcibly drawn blood from.

Matt Collins
07-11-2012, 02:59 PM
Good grief.

That's what coats, hats and long johns are for.I grew up in Orlando. If it's not warm enough to wear shorts, sandals, and a t-shirt, then I'm pretty miserable.

Keith and stuff
07-11-2012, 02:59 PM
Good grief.

That's what coats, hats and long johns are for.

I beleive Matt knows all about how to dress for cold weather. After all, he spent quite a bit of time in MN recently :)

kcchiefs6465
07-11-2012, 07:00 PM
Its still better than getting your blood forcefully taken. There are also urine tests I believe. Whats wrong with checking your urine?
............. Seriously?

tttppp
07-11-2012, 08:19 PM
............. Seriously?

I meant as an alternative to having blood drawn. Checking urine is much less worse than blood tests. I'm not advocating any forced test. I was just asking why are they checking blood when they can simply check urine.

tttppp
07-11-2012, 08:22 PM
I believe so, yes.

But the larger point is the right to refuse any test, as is your Fifth Amendment right, "implied consent" laws notwithstanding.

That is no longer an option.

You will be tested, if you must be physically strapped down and forcibly drawn blood from.

Thats bullshit. They force you to take one test. You're not guilty, so they force you to take another test to be sure.

tttppp
07-11-2012, 08:23 PM
See the 4th Amendment.

I was asking why can't they check urine as opposed to blood. I was not adovating that they should be checking your urine.

Luciconsort
07-11-2012, 08:30 PM
And if you don't want to get your door knocked down by a SWAT team, don't commit any crimes deserving of it...?

Just don't commit any crimes? And the cops will leave you alone?

Have you been in this country long...? i didn't say don't commit any crimes. i said don't drive drunk. i'm all for crime in moderation but if you drive around drunk you're an inconsiderate asshole and they should stick the needle in your eye when the catch you. if they catch you. in a perfect world everything would work out but here in amerika if you commit acts (or sometimes don't) that the rulers deem as "crime" they may kick your door in and kill you. but you can still refuse.

Kluge
07-11-2012, 09:00 PM
Good grief.

That's what coats, hats and long johns are for.

Do you really want him up there? Seriously?

kcchiefs6465
07-11-2012, 09:09 PM
i didn't say don't commit any crimes. i said don't drive drunk. i'm all for crime in moderation but if you drive around drunk you're an inconsiderate asshole and they should stick the needle in your eye when the catch you. if they catch you. in a perfect world everything would work out but here in amerika if you commit acts (or sometimes don't) that the rulers deem as "crime" they may kick your door in and kill you. but you can still refuse.
This thread's ridiculousness is peaking page after page. What??? (Honestly, this whole post should be bolded)

Anti Federalist
07-11-2012, 10:11 PM
Do you really want him up there? Seriously?

Well, look at it this way...we routinely have more than 4 feet of snow in the winter.

Keith and stuff
07-11-2012, 10:38 PM
Do you really want him up there? Seriously?

I would love Matt up here. I say move Matt from MA and Matt from TN up here. They could move to a 2 representative NH House district and both run for the GOP nomination. They could use the same sign. It would say, Elect Matt to House. Or, Matt with New Hampshire House written below the word Matt. They could even use the same website, MattforNHHouse.com. Anti Federalist would be their campaign manager. I'd be their treasurer and we would create a new chip-in account for every expense.

Xhin
07-12-2012, 02:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5QNWIuTKxc&feature=player_detailpage#t=124s

NCGOPer_for_Paul
07-12-2012, 06:26 AM
i didn't say don't commit any crimes. i said don't drive drunk. i'm all for crime in moderation but if you drive around drunk you're an inconsiderate asshole and they should stick the needle in your eye when the catch you. if they catch you. in a perfect world everything would work out but here in amerika if you commit acts (or sometimes don't) that the rulers deem as "crime" they may kick your door in and kill you. but you can still refuse.

Define "drunk".

I don't think anyone has a problem with the real drunk being removed from the road and arrested.

However, most "libertarians" have a serious problem with defining "drunk" at some arbitrary number, and using the power of the state to violate the Constitution to suspect anyone who's unlucky enough to get caught in a "checkpoint" of being "drunk". Is "drunk driving" that serious of a problem that "preventing" it requires a total disregard of individual liberty? The actual checkpoints themselves are probably LESS EFFECTIVE in stopping "drunks" as saturation patrols. But that would require actual police work, so most law enforcement won't do that.

This is my opinion. DUI laws have had as much of a chilling effect on actual personal relationships as social media and the internet. People do not go out to bars as much as they used to. Friday night bowling leagues have all but died in certain places in the country. People with something to lose just won't take the risk. "Calling a cab" isn't affordable for most people to do once a week. DUI laws have harmed the "corner bar". But, they have led to more people getting drunk at home and an increase in domestic violence.

presence
07-12-2012, 08:10 AM
It is ridiculous
that a SUSPECT
of a victimless
arbitrary
statutory offence
can be forced to submit
without lawyer or doctor
to an invasive
blood shedding
medical procedure
to validate
their liberty
to travel
in a free state.

Kelly.
07-12-2012, 08:49 AM
Here's CO law right now:

In Colorado, a person is guilty of a DUI if he or she operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or one or more drugs, OR he or she operates a motor vehicle as an habitual user of any controlled substance. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42-4-1301(1)(a)-(c) (West 2010).
Affirmative Defense

The fact that any person charged is or has been entitled to use one or more drugs under the laws of this state, including, but not limited to, the medical use of marijuana shall not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this subsection. Id. § 42-4-1301(1)(e).
Implied Consent

A person who drives a 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 the person's breath or blood 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. Id. § 42-4-1301.1(2)(a)(I).
If a person refuses to take or to complete any test or tests and such person subsequently stands trial for DUI or DWAI, the refusal to take or to complete, or to cooperate with the completing of, any test or tests shall be admissible into evidence at the trial. Id. § 42-4-1301(6)(a)(III)(d).
Neither the results of such preliminary screening test nor the fact that the person refused such test shall be used in any court action except in a hearing outside of the presence of a jury, when such hearing is held to determine if a law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe that the driver committed a violation of this section. The results of such preliminary screening test shall be made available to the driver or the driver's attorney on request. Id. § 42-4-1301 (6)(h)(i)(III).
The department shall revoke the license of a person for refusal of test for one year for a first refusal, two years for a second refusal of test and three years for a third or subsequent refusal. Id. § 42-2-126(3)(c)(I).
Generally, an arrested person has no right to consult with an attorney before taking a chemical test. Drake v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., 674 P.2d 359 (1984).
When an arresting officer invokes the sanctions of the implied consent law by requesting the driver to submit to chemical testing, the officer has a corresponding duty to comply with the driver's request for a blood test. People v. Gillett, 629 P.2d 613 (1981).



thanks for the info AF.
it looks like the question (in my mind anyway) would be whether there was probable cause BEFORE i was stopped at the DUI check point.
if not, then (in my eyes) the search was unconstitutional, and anything found during said search should be thrown out.

unfortunately i think it would take thousands of dollars to fight this, and that assumes i could find a judge that supports the constitution.

might be best to fight it up to a point, then "under duress, and with protest and prejudice" do what they want (especially if you know youre clean).
shitty situation either way. go broke fighting the state, or submit as a last resort to going broke fighting the state.

Keith and stuff
07-12-2012, 10:50 AM
This information compares the breath test refusal rates of drivers.

Driving Under the Influence: What are “No Refusal” Laws?
Cecil Helton
December 15th 2011
http://www.carinsurance.org/2011/12/what-are-no-refusal-laws-125/

Refusal rates vary from state to state. Florida Massachusetts and Louisiana have nearly 41 percent of DUI suspects refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test. And some are off the charts, such as New Hampshire. But in a state who’s motto is “live free or die,” it might not come as a surprise that more than 80 percent of DUI suspects refuse to breathe into the plastic tube.

Breath Test Refusal Rates, 2005
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration looked at the 38 states with records. State refusal rates varied from 2.4 percent in Delaware to 81 percent in New Hampshire. The average refusal rate was 22.4 percent, and the median refusal rate was 17.4 percent. The weighted mean of the refusal rates based on State populations in 2005 was 20.9 percent.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811098.pdf
1. NH 81%
2. TX 47%
3. MA 41%
4. FL 40%
5. LA 39%
5. OH 39%
...
34. ME 7%
35. NE 6%
36. CA 6%
37. VA 3%
38. DE 2%

Breath Test Refusal Rates, 2001
This information is over a year old, which is why I listed the 2005 information first. Also, this information is just estimates based on looking at a graph with the information. The information is from 41 states.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/809876.pdf
1. RI 85%
2. NH 83%
3. MA 47%
4. LA 46%
5. TX 43%
...
37. KY 10%
38. HI 9%
39. ME 8%
40. NE 6%
41. CA 5%

It should be noted that RI changed the law in 2006 to discourage people from refusing. Even though the law was made stricter and more comprehensive in RI, I don't know if refusal rates dropped in RI. It is possible that RI still has the highest refusal rate.

Prior to June 28, 2006, refusing a chemical test carried a lower penalty than a DUI, which resulted in a greater number of citations for chemical test refusals. The significant number of refusals severely limited the availability of BAC data and hindered proper problem identification. On June 28, 2006, Governor Carcieri signed legislation doubling the license suspension for a first offense refusal; criminalizing second and subsequent offenses; increasing fines, imprisonment, and license suspensions; and requiring community service. The intent of the law was to make the choice of chemical test refusal less attractive and increase BAC data. http://www.dot.state.ri.us/documents/highwaysafety/RI_HSPP_FFY2012.pdf

kcchiefs6465
07-12-2012, 06:46 PM
5. OH 39%

Thirty nine percent of all suspected drunk drivers in my state were automatically assumed guilty. So much for the fourth and fifth amendments.

Anti Federalist
07-12-2012, 07:57 PM
That is good stuff there.

Keep your mouth shut, literally.


This information compares the breath test refusal rates of drivers.

Driving Under the Influence: What are “No Refusal” Laws?
Cecil Helton
December 15th 2011
http://www.carinsurance.org/2011/12/what-are-no-refusal-laws-125/


Breath Test Refusal Rates, 2005
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration looked at the 38 states with records. State refusal rates varied from 2.4 percent in Delaware to 81 percent in New Hampshire. The average refusal rate was 22.4 percent, and the median refusal rate was 17.4 percent. The weighted mean of the refusal rates based on State populations in 2005 was 20.9 percent.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811098.pdf
1. NH 81%
2. TX 47%
3. MA 41%
4. FL 40%
5. LA 39%
5. OH 39%
...
34. ME 7%
35. NE 6%
36. CA 6%
37. VA 3%
38. DE 2%

Breath Test Refusal Rates, 2001
This information is over a year old, which is why I listed the 2005 information first. Also, this information is just estimates based on looking at a graph with the information. The information is from 41 states.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/809876.pdf
1. RI 85%
2. NH 83%
3. MA 47%
4. LA 46%
5. TX 43%
...
37. KY 10%
38. HI 9%
39. ME 8%
40. NE 6%
41. CA 5%

It should be noted that RI changed the law in 2006 to discourage people from refusing. Even though the law was made stricter and more comprehensive in RI, I don't know if refusal rates dropped in RI. It is possible that RI still has the highest refusal rate.
http://www.dot.state.ri.us/documents/highwaysafety/RI_HSPP_FFY2012.pdf

PaulConventionWV
07-12-2012, 08:34 PM
The checkpoints won't stop, they'll just come up with 'solutions' to that problem, like they always do

"The ?PD was cleared of any wrongdoing. It has been determined that the department is diffused of any responsibility for the defendant's illness and/or injury, and the tests were not the cause of said trauma. The chief of police has spoken."

KCIndy
07-12-2012, 11:36 PM
Whats wrong with checking your urine?


Ask the poor bastard who was holding the cup the last time I "donated" a specimen! :D :D

tttppp
07-12-2012, 11:38 PM
Ask the poor bastard who was holding the cup the last time I "donated" a specimen! :D :D

Thats their problem. If they want to force a urine sample, they can hold the cup.

Anti Federalist
07-12-2012, 11:39 PM
Ask the poor bastard who was holding the cup the last time I "donated" a specimen! :D :D

There was somebody there with you, holding the cup?

Ummmm, somebody was doing it wrong.

:eek:

KCIndy
07-13-2012, 12:05 AM
There was somebody there with you, holding the cup?

Ummmm, somebody was doing it wrong.

:eek:

Heh heh heh.... just a bit of gratuitous fantasizing about what might happen to any aggressive individual who demands urine from me alongside a highway.... :D

coffeewithchess
07-13-2012, 12:12 AM
Give a damn?

Pffffttt...

They want it, they embrace it, they condone and support it.

"If it saves just one life!!"

"If you're not doing anything wrong!!??"

Exactly. And it's that stupid thinking that I wish the campaign had tried to at least torpedo some knowledge into if they weren't serious about winning.

tod evans
07-13-2012, 03:24 AM
Thats their problem. If they want to force a urine sample, they can hold the cup.

Forced catheterization......coming to a roadblock near you soon.

Suzanimal
08-28-2014, 05:59 PM
Saturation patrols?:confused:





THP to conduct 'no refusal' enforcement Labor Day weekend


NASHVILLE, Tenn. -

The Tennessee Highway Patrol will conduct a “no refusal” enforcement campaign this Labor Day weekend.

It goes into effect at Midnight Friday, Aug. 29 and concludes at Midnight Monday, Sept. 1.

The “no refusal” campaign means that if a driver is pulled over for suspected drinking and driving they cannot refuse to take a blood test. It allows law enforcement to seek search warrants for blood samples if they suspect someone is driving while impaired.

“Law enforcement officials have another tool to utilize to deter impaired driving and reduce fatal crashes on Tennessee roadways by conducting ‘no refusal' enforcements,” THP Colonel Tracy Trott said.

Troopers will conduct “no refusal” enforcement in the following counties: Union, Hamilton, Marion, Montgomery, Shelby, Hawkins, Smith, Maury and Hardin.

Officials said there will also be driver's license, sobriety and seatbelt checkpoints, as well as saturation patrols and bar and tavern checks.:confused:

“Our district captains have created enforcement plans specific to their regions. So, there will be a variety of specialized enforcement during Labor Day, including distracted driving, commercial vehicle safety, and Move Over enforcement, for example. However, the priority is always on impaired driving and seatbelt enforcement,” Trott said.

Over Labor Day weekend in 2013, 16 people were killed in 15 fatal crashes on Tennessee roadways.

So far in 2014, there have been 3,981 crashes on Tennessee roadways involving alcohol-impaired drivers, about 399 less than last year.

Seatbelt usage is another contributing factor in crashes across the state. To date, 50 percent of vehicle occupants killed in crashes were not wearing safety restraints in 2014.

http://www.wkrn.com/story/26358249/thp-to-conduct-no-refusal-enforcement-labor-day-weekend

phill4paul
08-28-2014, 06:06 PM
Saturation patrols?:confused:


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

..means nothing. When un-a-lien-able rights are given away for the "privilege" of travel.

Anti Federalist
08-28-2014, 06:11 PM
Saturation patrols?:confused:

Targeting sectors with known enemy activity with "surge" forces.

Gonna safety the shit out of you.

Anti Federalist
08-28-2014, 06:13 PM
What are you guys bitching about in here?

Looks like freedom to me.

<belch>

http://redicecreations.com/ul_img/25891bloodtest_678x320_front.jpg

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/forced-blood-draw_1.jpg

http://viewpointsofasagittarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/no-refusal-forced-blood-draws-dui-560x420.jpg

presence
08-28-2014, 06:24 PM
It is ridiculous
that a SUSPECT
of a victimless
arbitrary
statutory offence
can be forced to submit
without lawyer or doctor
to an invasive
blood shedding
medical procedure
to validate
their liberty
to travel
in a free state.

yep 2 years later... no change in outlook.

phill4paul
08-28-2014, 07:00 PM
What are you guys bitching about in here?

Looks like freedom to me.

<belch>

http://redicecreations.com/ul_img/25891bloodtest_678x320_front.jpg

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/forced-blood-draw_1.jpg

http://viewpointsofasagittarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/no-refusal-forced-blood-draws-dui-560x420.jpg


Line in the sand. I and some of theye would die in the attempt to put me on a gurney for forced blood extraction.

Anti Federalist
08-28-2014, 07:28 PM
Line in the sand. I and some of theye would die in the attempt to put me on a gurney for forced blood extraction.

I am in agreement with you, there would be bloodshed.