TN-Cops roll out numerous "No Refusal" checkpoints.

[Anti Federalist]

Because nothing says Freedom like having ten cops wrestle your ass onto a stretcher and stab needles in your veins.

LOL@ the Fifth Amendment.


No Refusal' checkpoints scheduled during New Year's

Posted: Dec 28, 2012 8:42 AM EST Updated: Dec 28, 2012 04:15 PM

http://www.wkrn.com/story/20439381/police-step-up-dui-enforcement-during-new-years

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -

If you think you might get away with drinking and driving this holiday weekend, consider this: law enforcement officials no longer need your consent to get a sample of your blood.

It's called the "No Refusal" law, and it went into effect in July.

The law lets law enforcement officials, such as Sgt. Matt Perry, get a search warrant for your blood.

"Once we obtain that search warrant then we can take your blood from you, take you to the hospital and get your blood drawn, regardless of whether you want to or not," said Perry.

After nine years with the THP, Perry said he has seen his fair share of impaired drivers.

"Whether they have watery eyes, blood shot eyes, [or] slurred speech," Perry said he knows what to look for.

It can be tough work, late at night, but it's work Perry told Nashville's News 2 he takes very seriously, adding, "You see these signs now showing the fatal numbers that we've had this year and hitting 1,000. It's just, everybody's got to do their part to stop that."

According to THP, alcohol related crashes are on the rise in Tennessee. So far in 2012, there have been more than 7,500 across the state so far this year, which is 182 more than 2011.

Authorities said they believe the new law will help them in their fight against impaired driving.

"In the past, if we stopped somebody that we believed was impaired, we would offer them a chance to submit to a blood test or a breath test and they had the option or opportunity to refuse," explained Perry.

THP organized its first "No Refusal" event over the Fourth of July holiday weekend just days after the new law took effect.

During that operation 48 people were arrested for suspicion of DUI. Officers obtained eight search warrants for blood tests during that first operation that took place in five counties.

Over the Labor Day weekend there were 74 people arrested for suspicion of DUI and one person who refused to voluntarily provide a blood sample.

The most recent operation during the Thanksgiving holiday netted 78 arrests and five people who refused to voluntarily provide a blood sample.

Already if someone has a previous DUI conviction or if children are present during a DUI stop an officer can obtain a blood sample from the driver without their consent and without a judge's approval.

That is the same for people who have previous DUI convictions.

The Wilson County District Attorney's General office told Nashville's News 2, having this blood evidence makes it easier to convict impaired drivers.

"It's definitely more tangible, it's more clear cut," added Perry, "You can see the legal limit is point oh eight, and it shows they're above it or below it. It makes it very easy."

If the "No Refusal" part of DUI checkpoints keeps just one impaired driver off the streets, Perry said that's a start.

(I think Officer Perry and his pals ought have the right to randomly search your homes for possible impairment. More people die from slips trips and falls around the house than from drunk driving. If it saves one person, right....right??? - AF)

"It's there every night, and we want people to know that," Perry added. "Hopefully, that alone will deter them from driving while impaired."

Friday night's check point in Wilson County at the intersection of Central Pike and South Mt. Juliet Road is from 11:30 p.m. until 1 a.m. Saturday morning.

[Matt Collins]

Yep, the logic is that since they have a judge on standby to issue a warrant on the spot, then it's lega.

[DamianTV]

No Refusal? Call it for what it really is; No Rights What So Ever.

[phill4paul]

No Refusal? Call it for what it really is; No Rights What So Ever.

Travelling is a P-R-I-V-I-L-E-G-E don'tcha know? Instead of private roads which could enact any kinds of insane rules we get freedom of travel. And don'tcha know that if roads were owned by non-government entities we would have to PAY a toll to keep them in good order. That would be crazy and complicated. I'm just glad I don't have to do anything other than pay licensing, registration, tags, property and gas taxes. It's much easier that way.

[DamianTV]

Travelling is a P-R-I-V-I-L-E-G-E don'tcha know? Instead of private roads which could enact any kinds of insane rules we get freedom of travel. And don'tcha know that if roads were owned by non-government entities we would have to PAY a toll to keep them in good order. That would be crazy and complicated. I'm just glad I don't have to do anything other than pay licensing, registration, tags, property and gas taxes. It's much easier that way.

Thank you for my much needed correction Comrade!

[Neil Desmond]

I don't give a flying crap who gave them their blessing to do such a thing (judge, governor, president, king, emperor, the Pope, whatever). If someone tries to stab me without my consent, whether it's with a needle, knife, whatever,

someone's liable to wind up


DEAD!

[DamianTV]

Related Story:

Pennsylvania Citizen Sues Over ‘Voluntary’ Cheek Swabs
http://www.infowars.com/pennsylvania-citizen-sues-over-voluntary-cheek-swabs/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4y0M21d3to&feature=player_embedded

(single bump)

[Athan]

They can still be sued personally for unlawful detainment right?

[Occam's Banana]

If the "No Refusal" part of DUI checkpoints keeps just one impaired driver off the streets, Perry said that's a start.

"And just you hope like hell that we never get anywhere near the end!"

[CPUd]

Why not just post the list so we know where to take detours?

http://news.tn.gov/sites/default/files/122712--%20No%20Refusal%20NYE%20Checkpoints.pdf

[DamianTV]

I'd suggest that "there might be an app for that", but the NSA will use that app to notify the local cops that I know where their Checkpoints are at. Then I'll just be arrested for Resisting Arrest, or some other made up non crime, for the "safety" of the existence of their jobs.

Meanwhile, there are absolutely no other violent crimes happening, no other violent criminals on the streets, no murders to solve, no money manipulators laundering their money, and nothing else worth actually doing.

[cjm]

For those that haven't seen this before...


The DUI Exception to the Constitution

Over the years I have expressed my belief that organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) are well-intentioned "true believers" — but believers who, like most zealots, have a rigid and narrow focus and who are ignorant of the harm they cause to others.

A few years ago, I was invited to give a lecture to a "think tank" of government, corporate and academic types expanding upon this view. In the years since then that I have given versions of the lecture to other groups, the legal and political situation has only grown worse.

Perhaps the lecture itself might better explain why I consider the activities of such organizations to be a continuing threat to our institutions and constitutional safeguards...

I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights, is not from Iraq or Iran. I don't think it's from North Korea. I don't think it's from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat, as it has always been throughout history, is internal: It is from within. But I do not think it is terrorists or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD...

more: http://www.duicentral.com/dui/the-dui-exception/

[phill4paul]

For those that haven't seen this before...

more: http://www.duicentral.com/dui/the-dui-exception/

I'd have to counter the premise.


Over the years I have expressed my belief that organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) are well-intentioned "true believers" — but believers who, like most zealots, have a rigid and narrow focus and who are ignorant of the harm they cause to others.

MADD was founded by Candy Lightner. Her daughter was killed by a drunk drive. She was a "true believer" in the sense of being a crusader against drunk driving. She left the organization because she felt they were becoming too "neo-prohibitionist." It was taken over by people who saw a cash cow on the tears of the public heart. It is all about a paycheck and petty tyranny now.

[DGambler]

https://www.waze.com/

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Supreme. Court. Challenge.

The right to be secure in one's "person" is clearly violated by this law (and hundreds if others.) Hell, those robed cunts might actually overturn the law, as it is so boldly, blatently unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 decision. With Sotomayer writing the dissent.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

This kind of shit makes me angry.

[jmdrake]

It's called the "No Refusal" law, and it went into effect in July.

The law lets law enforcement officials, such as Sgt. Matt Perry, get a search warrant for your blood.

"Once we obtain that search warrant then we can take your blood from you, take you to the hospital and get your blood drawn, regardless of whether you want to or not," said Perry.

After nine years with the THP, Perry said he has seen his fair share of impaired drivers.

"Whether they have watery eyes, blood shot eyes, [or] slurred speech," Perry said he knows what to look for.


Several things to note. One is that prior to the law, you were much better off in Tennessee refusing to take the test than not refusing. Those who refused ended up getting a better deal from the DA than those who complied. Lesson learned? In general don't comply with law enforcement any more than you have to in order to keep from getting shot.

Note two. On the whole "slurred speech" thing? I just went to a CLE on DUI defense. The attorney (who was once a cop and then later a prosecutor) said that whenever he defended one of these cases, he would always ask the cop "Can you tell me one word that my client slurred?" He never got an answer to that question. Also he would ask for dash cam video whenever it was available. Sometimes it would show the defendant speaking clearly to the officer who had (falsely) claimed the speech was slurred.

Note three. I also learned that there is case law in Tennessee that even weaving across the line is not necessarily probable cause for DUI.

Note four. If you get a DUI and you want to contest it, ask for the full DUI report. Don't just accept the results that they give. The DUI defense attorney explained how they do the test and things to look for. For instance the way the test is run, alcohol left in the machine from previous tests can make your test results higher than they should be. So, where was your test in the batch of tests run?

Okay, that's If you get a DUI, don't just roll over an take it. Find a lawyer that specializes in DUI defense. Make sure he's willing and able to really fight for you from the preliminary hearing stage all the way to the end. Yeah, if you don't take the deal and lose you can get some more jail time. But if you win you can keep the DUI off your record.

[DamianTV]

Did anyone encounter one of these yet? I cant say much for myself as I just stayed home.

[Matt Collins]

Several things to note. One is that prior to the law, you were much better off in Tennessee refusing to take the test than not refusing. Those who refused ended up getting a better deal from the DA than those who complied. Lesson learned? In general don't comply with law enforcement any more than you have to in order to keep from getting shot.

Note two. On the whole "slurred speech" thing? I just went to a CLE on DUI defense. The attorney (who was once a cop and then later a prosecutor) said that whenever he defended one of these cases, he would always ask the cop "Can you tell me one word that my client slurred?" He never got an answer to that question. Also he would ask for dash cam video whenever it was available. Sometimes it would show the defendant speaking clearly to the officer who had (falsely) claimed the speech was slurred.

Note three. I also learned that there is case law in Tennessee that even weaving across the line is not necessarily probable cause for DUI.

Note four. If you get a DUI and you want to contest it, ask for the full DUI report. Don't just accept the results that they give. The DUI defense attorney explained how they do the test and things to look for. For instance the way the test is run, alcohol left in the machine from previous tests can make your test results higher than they should be. So, where was your test in the batch of tests run?

Okay, that's If you get a DUI, don't just roll over an take it. Find a lawyer that specializes in DUI defense. Make sure he's willing and able to really fight for you from the preliminary hearing stage all the way to the end. Yeah, if you don't take the deal and lose you can get some more jail time. But if you win you can keep the DUI off your record.



John,

I had a state legislator say that these no-refusal stops were perfectly ok because they were simply issuing a warrant immediately to draw blood. What are your thoughts on that?

[mrsat_98]

John,

I had a state legislator say that these no-refusal stops were perfectly ok because they were simply issuing a warrant immediately to draw blood. What are your thoughts on that?

Ain't no blood in my alcohol.

[jmdrake]

John,

I had a state legislator say that these no-refusal stops were perfectly ok because they were simply issuing a warrant immediately to draw blood. What are your thoughts on that?

Are you asking me if I'm okay with it? No. Is it possibly constitutional under current law? Perhaps. At one point officers in some states were doing forced blood draws without warrants. (See: http://www.tnduicenter.com/tag/tennessee-forced-blood-draw/) Now, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a warrant is required. So having judges "on call" isn't any more unconstitutional. My question would be how often are such warrants denied and under what circumstances?

[Matt Collins]

Are you asking me if I'm okay with it? No. Is it possibly constitutional under current law? Perhaps. At one point officers in some states were doing forced blood draws without warrants. (See: http://www.tnduicenter.com/tag/tennessee-forced-blood-draw/) Now, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a warrant is required. So having judges "on call" isn't any more unconstitutional. My question would be how often are such warrants denied and under what circumstances?

Yeah, my thought is that it may actually be Constitutional, but it's still against liberty.

Another question - how is this NOT considered testifying against yourself?

[phill4paul]

Yeah, my thought is that it may actually be Constitutional, but it's still against liberty.

Another question - how is this NOT considered testifying against yourself?

Because testifying against yourself is oral incrimination. Forced blood draws are "material" seizures much like a warrant for your e-mails. You are nothing more than a material object. Your flesh and blood are not your own. It belongs to the state. With a warrant, of course.

[pcosmar]

John,

I had a state legislator say that these no-refusal stops were perfectly ok because they were simply issuing a warrant immediately to draw blood. What are your thoughts on that?

Rubber Stamp warrants are blatantly unconstitutional of their face. Not worth the paper they are written on. and any Judge that signs one should be immediately disbarred. (at the very least)
The same for any warrant based on an anonymous tip.

[jmdrake]

Yeah, my thought is that it may actually be Constitutional, but it's still against liberty.

Another question - how is this NOT considered testifying against yourself?

That's a point that can be argued either way. Are you testifying against yourself when you are forced to participate in a police line up? If testimony is something that you say then it's not testimony. Blood samples can be taken from dead people but dead people tell no tales.

That said, don't forget that the Tennessee constitution provides more protections than the U.S. constitution. Here's the U.S. constitution 5th amendment for review. Pertinent part is in bold.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[

Here is the Tennessee constitution article 9.

§ 9. Rights of accused

That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath the right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof, to meet the witnesses face to face, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and in prosecutions by indictment or presentment, a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the County in which the crime shall have been committed, and shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.

Note that the Tennessee constitution bars one being compelled to give evidence any evidence against himself. The U.S. constitution only bars testimony. By the Tennessee constitution, a lot of what currently passes muster in Tennessee is really unconstitutional. I'm surprised that nobody else has picked up on this.

Edit: A scary and unsettled question of U.S. law is are forced brain scans unconstitutional under the 5th amendment. People in India have already been convicted based on brain scan readings after being shown images of a murder scene.

[phill4paul]

shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.

That's a pretty salient point. Wow.

[Contumacious]

Sen. Mike Crapo pleads guilty to DUI charge (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-mike-crapo-pleads-guilty-to-dui-charge/)


Senator Crapo was reduced to a quivering child because the state disapproved of the chemical makeup of his blood. There was no accident, no damage, no injuries, and no harm. Harm was the linchpin of all criminal prosecution until the Progressives began their assault on freedom 100 years ago.

Judge Andrew Napolitano (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-non-crime-called-dui/)

.

[Philhelm]

Rubber Stamp warrants are blatantly unconstitutional of their face. Not worth the paper they are written on. and any Judge that signs one should be immediately disbarred. (at the very least)
The same for any warrant based on an anonymous tip.

Judges that rubber stamp warrants should be forced to watch their families consumed by ravenous, wild boars before having their hands sawn off at the wrist with a rusty hacksaw so that their tainted fingers may never sign a warrant again.

[Contumacious]

Judges that rubber stamp warrants should be forced to watch their families consumed by ravenous, wild boars before having their hands sawn off at the wrist with a rusty hacksaw so that their tainted fingers may never sign a warrant again.

Judges that rubber stamp warrants will be awarded the Adolf Hitler Medal of Honor and considered for Appellate positions.

[Matt Collins]

shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.

Note that the Tennessee constitution bars one being compelled to give evidence any evidence against himself. The U.S. constitution only bars testimony. By the Tennessee constitution, a lot of what currently passes muster in Tennessee is really unconstitutional. I'm surprised that nobody else has picked up on this.


Aren't forced blood withdraws giving evidence against oneself? :confused:

[jmdrake]

Aren't forced blood withdraws giving evidence against oneself? :confused:

Well Judge Drake would say so, but I'm unelectable.

Seriously, this is a case study in the dangers of relying solely on the U.S. Bill of Rights to protect your rights. In between posts I did a quick case search on the subject. Here's how the Tennessee right not to produce evidence got eviscerated:

From the Tennessee Supreme Court - 1979.

590 S.W.2d 435 (1979) Sam DELK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Tennessee, Respondent.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9084188116285845643&q=tennessee+constitution+%22shall+not+be+compelled +to+give+evidence+against+himself%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,43

Defendant insists that Article I, § 9 of the Tennessee Constitution is broader than the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution and that the remarks quoted infringed upon defendant's right to remain silent and to decline to adduce any witnesses or proof whatever, including testimony of any witness or witnesses who might fall within the purview of the rule that failure to call an available witness, who knows material facts and is controlled by or would be naturally favorable to defendant, gives rise to an inference that the uncalled witness' testimony would not sustain the defendant's contentions.

No authority has been cited in support of that proposition other than the language of the Tennessee Constitution. The prohibition in our Constitution is that an accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, whereas the language in the federal constitution is that the accused shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. We do not agree that the Tennessee prohibition against self-incrimination is broader or different in any application thereof because of the use of the word "evidence" instead of the word "witness."

Now personally I believe that ruling is wrong. Everyone knows that "evidence" and "witness" mean two entirely different things in a court of law, witness testimony merely being a type of evidence. But apparently no one has been able to get a court to agree with that with regard to the Tennessee state constitution.

[phill4paul]

eviscerated

Well said.

[Anti Federalist]

Rubber Stamp warrants are blatantly unconstitutional of their face. Not worth the paper they are written on. and any Judge that signs one should be immediately disbarred. (at the very least)
The same for any warrant based on an anonymous tip.

One of the primary reasons why Bostonians, over two centuries ago, started shooting law enforcement in the face.

"Rubber stamp" worthless warrants that could be signed on the spot for seizures and arrests.

[Origanalist]

One of the primary reasons why Bostonians, over two centuries ago, started shooting law enforcement in the face.

"Rubber stamp" worthless warrants that could be signed on the spot for seizures and arrests.

Now they cheer them in the streets.

[Contumacious]

That's a point that can be argued either way. Are you testifying against yourself when you are forced to participate in a police line up? If testimony is something that you say then it's not testimony. Blood samples can be taken from dead people but dead people tell no tales.

That said, don't forget that the Tennessee constitution provides more protections than the U.S. constitution. Here's the U.S. constitution 5th amendment for review. Pertinent part is in bold.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[

Here is the Tennessee constitution article 9.

§ 9. Rights of accused

That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath the right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof, to meet the witnesses face to face, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and in prosecutions by indictment or presentment, a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the County in which the crime shall have been committed, and shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.

Note that the Tennessee constitution bars one being compelled to give evidence any evidence against himself. The U.S. constitution only bars testimony. By the Tennessee constitution, a lot of what currently passes muster in Tennessee is really unconstitutional. I'm surprised that nobody else has picked up on this.

Edit: A scary and unsettled question of U.S. law is are forced brain scans unconstitutional under the 5th amendment. People in India have already been convicted based on brain scan readings after being shown images of a murder scene.


Well Judge Drake would say so, but I'm unelectable.

Seriously, this is a case study in the dangers of relying solely on the U.S. Bill of Rights to protect your rights. In between posts I did a quick case search on the subject. Here's how the Tennessee right not to produce evidence got eviscerated:

From the Tennessee Supreme Court - 1979.

590 S.W.2d 435 (1979) Sam DELK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Tennessee, Respondent.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9084188116285845643&q=tennessee+constitution+%22shall+not+be+compelled +to+give+evidence+against+himself%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,43

Defendant insists that Article I, § 9 of the Tennessee Constitution is broader than the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution and that the remarks quoted infringed upon defendant's right to remain silent and to decline to adduce any witnesses or proof whatever, including testimony of any witness or witnesses who might fall within the purview of the rule that failure to call an available witness, who knows material facts and is controlled by or would be naturally favorable to defendant, gives rise to an inference that the uncalled witness' testimony would not sustain the defendant's contentions.

No authority has been cited in support of that proposition other than the language of the Tennessee Constitution. The prohibition in our Constitution is that an accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, whereas the language in the federal constitution is that the accused shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. We do not agree that the Tennessee prohibition against self-incrimination is broader or different in any application thereof because of the use of the word "evidence" instead of the word "witness."

Now personally I believe that ruling is wrong. Everyone knows that "evidence" and "witness" mean two entirely different things in a court of law, witness testimony merely being a type of evidence. But apparently no one has been able to get a court to agree with that with regard to the Tennessee state constitution.

They will rule against the defendant even if that requires ignoring or amending the Constitution.

[Matt Collins]

Now personally I believe that ruling is wrong. Everyone knows that "evidence" and "witness" mean two entirely different things in a court of law, witness testimony merely being a type of evidence. But apparently no one has been able to get a court to agree with that with regard to the Tennessee state constitution.
WOW! I agree.... that is pathetic.


It's a classic example of courts just making shit up in order to get their agenda passed whether it has any basis whatsoever to the Constitution, prior law, or even factual reality. :mad:


I mean really, it doesn't take 30 seconds to pull up Black's Law Dictionary to see that "witness" |= "evidence"

[Contumacious]

WOW! I agree.... that is pathetic.


It's a classic example of courts just making shit up in order to get their agenda passed whether it has any basis whatsoever to the Constitution, prior law, or even factual reality. :mad:


I mean really, it doesn't take 30 seconds to pull up Black's Law Dictionary to see that "witness" |= "evidence"

The son of bitches are paid to perpetrate the fraud that we still have the right to judicial review.

[Anti Federalist]

bump