NHTSA assaults 4th ammendment rights on MS highways

[GP403]

[Excellent but extremely un-admin-like rant redacted. Man that was some good sh*t. 😢 😢 I could have posted it, but I didn't. See how that works? ]

right so, from the OP's article that's got him so hot (first sentence I might add)....

motorists who were suspected of driving impaired and refused sobriety tests could be ordered to submit to blood tests.

emphasis mine. Notice it doesn't say they pulled over every single driver and forced them to blow into the little do-hickey and rifled through their cars and trunks and personal belongings and stuff. THAT would be a gross violation of the 4th amendment. "Probable cause" is required. This precedent has been around forever. I would be more pissed off about seat-belt checkpoints than what you're on about, to be honest. Also check the "could be" part.

"Implied consent" has been around for decades already. They run these DUI Checkpoints at various times here in OK. They announce the ****ing things ahead of time on the news. If you're that ****ing paranoid, just take a different route.

continuing....

That officer has a legal avenue (of seeking a warrant from a judge) that they can take regardless of the 'No Refusal' weekend," said Poulos.

Under normal circumstances, however, the motorist is taken to a hospital for blood to be drawn if a judge issues a warrant for the test. During "No Refusal" weekends, a registered nurse is at a jail to draw blood on site.

again, emphasis mine. The mere fact that a warrant is required for this, basically nullifies your entire argument. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there it is. The jackboots can march all up in your house and toss it six ways from Sunday if they have a warrant from a judge, and you're powerless to stop it. All of that has been tested in court time and again for decades, all the way up to Scrotus. I mean scotus.

 

[pencero]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/port ... 7ead8.html

the results of forced blood withdrawal result in unnecessary confrontations that put people's lives at risk when a simple urinalysis or pass/fail law would substitute just fine.

 

[pontiacgp]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/duneland/man-accused-of-assaulting-police-during-drunk-driving-arrest/article_bdb93b10-a995-5f98-8628-973c5ad7ead8.html

the results of forced blood withdrawal result in unnecessary confrontations that put people's lives at risk when a simple urinalysis or pass/fail law would substitute just fine.

I don't think you chose a good example, this guy was the aggressor from the startt

 

[rustyroger]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/duneland/man-accused-of-assaulting-police-during-drunk-driving-arrest/article_bdb93b10-a995-5f98-8628-973c5ad7ead8.html

the results of forced blood withdrawal result in unnecessary confrontations that put people's lives at risk when a simple urinalysis or pass/fail law would substitute just fine.

What monstrous injustice has Mr Brodien suffered?.
It seems he is alleged to have been driving a vehicle with malfunctioning rear lights, and when stopped by a law enforcement officer who I think was carrying out his lawful duties by doing so, tried to obstruct the officer, which gave the officer probable cause to suspect he may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Roger Brodien then (Allegedly, this has not been proven in a court of law to my current knowledge), assaulted the officer and had to be forcibly restrained.

I don't see any part of the news report saying Mr Brodien was going to be subjected to forcible blood withdrawal. Certainly not until the situation had escalated way past a simple traffic stop.
Perhaps the officer was at fault for not simply getting back into his patrol car and leaving him alone after Mr Brodien refused to speak to him?.
The same logic that would make it my fault if I was injured by being in the way during a drive-by shooting perhaps?.

Roger.

 

[pencero]

I dont even care that a drunk guy did get punched in the face to be honest; and I certainly wasn't suggesting that the police should just drive off after giving him a ticket b/c refuse the breathalyzer either. I was simply pointing out that the police should be able to give him a DUI:Refusal charge, and then they should be able to move on to the next person. A person that drunk should be considered temporarily insane and put in a cell and ignored until they are sober. There is no point in a law that is obviously going to lead to a breakdown in civility repeatedly when the person being investigated is already under arrest. Many of these people will not be able to get their cars out of impound; any profit that was to be had through the car auction becomes lost to the cost of transporting these idiots to the hospital where they could try to initiate a struggle and get at an officer's gun or something stupid like that could happen in a split second. A doctor who went to school 8 years shouldn't have to worry about being distracted by a rude drunk person while attending to patients with legitimate medical issues. As I already said, the common practice in some counties nearby used to be that they would put a standard urine drug test on the toilet and shut it off so it can't flush. Then the person would have ALL NIGHT to piss in it until court which was usually the next morning. If they didn't take the test it was just considered an automatic fail. There was absolutely nothing wrong w/ this system and the only reason it fell out of use was some people were putting apple juice in the test kits and getting away with it at the hospital. So don't let them order any drinks and say they have to use the water fountain then. Simple... There was always an incriminating video of the guy pissing all over the floor available in instances where the guy refused to take the test; a person who is truly drunk would NEVER be able to hold a piss in for 8 hours until bond court the next morning - they will have to piss eventually if they actually drank, and if they piss on the floor it might as well be a guilty plea. Very simple system that did not need to be replaced with this less efficient system.

 

[pontiacgp]

So you have gone from an alleged infringement on a person for forcing a blood test to infringing the person's rights and freedom for a whole nite. As far as claiming an intoxicated person as insane do you not first have to prove the person is drunk? I wonder how many people have been forced to have a blood test cause I have not seen any posts regarding that or seen any articles on the internet.

 

[pencero]

I think you guys just don't understand my argument. Clearly if a person is out driving a malfunctioning vehicle and they are not a celebrity or local mechanic they should expect to be accosted by law enforcement and possibly expect sobriety test or a breathalyzer - especially at night. If they refuse and they are already under arrest for suspicion of DUI and you give them a regular drug test, they would basically have to be insane not to take the test in an effort to prove themselves innocent and eradicate the possibility of being convicted for DUI... Otherwise they are clearly drunk. If you put them in front of a judge who can clearly see they are hung over or psychotic the drug test becomes evidence whether they took it or not, either way should result in suspension of driving privileges regardless because the person already refused to take the breathalyzer, and then failed to take a drug test when the invitation was open for hours. If the penalty for refusal is the same there no longer is a reason to force somebody to do anything. The driving a struggling drunk guy to the hospital and carrying him up the hall for a forced blood test thing is stupid. It's Planet of the Apes 3 stupid. It's forcing people to have more than an hour of face time with a person who is likely to become violent at any moment and it wastes the officer's time. Forcing drunks up hallways of health institutions doesn't prove a thing about a person we can all already clearly see is drunk. No wonder the cops smashed his face in; they were annoyed he was going to waste an hour of their time and that they were going to have to waste an hour or more executing this incredibly stupid and expensive policy. Think it's not stupid? If the guy turned out to be stone sober but schizophrenic they would send him home with medicine and not take his license. They don't even have a policy in place ahead of time to look at a case where a person was actually crazy and refused to take the test based on some kind of false perception. What if a person with autism gets stopped and seems 'drunk' but they are just slow; I guess it's fine if a person like that gets their face smashed in too then. Who cares?

 

[truracer20]

Autistic drivers? Is there such a thing? I realize there are different levels of autism but I have to assume that an autistic person without the ability to deal with day to day situations wouldn't have a drivers license...
And for the most part police officers don't just assume a person is drunk or has been drinking or is under the influence of drugs. Usually there is a reason an officer pulls a driver over, Further interaction with the person gives them a better idea of the persons condition. I was pulled over once after having 1 beer, the officer smelled it and had me do a couple of the tests, he determined I wasn't drunk and sent me on my way. We were courteous with each other.
A person that doesn't have the mental capacity to be civil to a police officer shouldn't be driving in the first place and the ones who think it's their right to be an *ss to a police officer because of their entitlement syndrome deserve the lumps they get. If a person is just off their meds and puts up a fight then the officer will use the force necessary to subdue them. If you break the law then own it when you're caught, don't get pissed and accuse the officer of picking on you. But no way is a cop just going to walk away into the sunset because a person wants to argue, debate or be combatant.
Police officers have a high stress job and don't need to be given the run around needlessly. If you cooperate and are guilty of nothing then any evidence the collect will reflect that, or if you are it will reflect that as well.

All states have laws and in all of them it is your responsibility to know them. Ignorance is no excuse.
I can't imagine an officer administering a urine test in the street... Or in a bathroom with a pissed of belligerent drunk or a dope head that's nodding off non stop, I assume if they're nodding off while driving a 3000 pound car they do the same no matter what they're doing... Then there is the whole male/female issue. And since a breath test doesn't register for drugs a blood test seems logical. And they can't wait overnight as your blood alcohol level goes down with time, to be admissible it has to be done in a timely manner. Blood and urine are the two that stand up indisputable in court.

To be honest changing the law won't keep the knuckleheads from getting roughed up by cops.
Some people really need to forget they ever heard the words probable cause when dealing with motor vehicle operation. Get yourself a CDL or in some states just a vehicle that can be defined as a commercial vehicle, any vehicle that's primary purpose is for financial gain or to tow a trailer, it doesn't even have to have signage. You are now a prime target for random DOT stops/checks.

I really don't have a problem with sobriety check points, I would rather a drunk or dope head gets arrested before they injure or kill. You honestly have to realize that crashes involving intoxicated drivers usually happen because a cop didn't get lucky enough to spot an issue prior to the crash and initiate a stop. They really are just trying to keep people safe, the drunks too.

 

[truracer20]

I also love freedom, life and heath and hold it dearly for my family as well as myself. And it irritates me to no end when I can't ENJOY those things because of other peoples actions. For the most part laws, and those who enforce them keep others from destroying those things for me and others.

 

[rustyroger]

Can someone clarify this for me?;
In the UK a drivers licence is a PRIVELEGE, and having been granted that privilege by passing a test I have to comply with the law to keep it.
In the USA is a drivers license a privilege or a RIGHT.
I'm aware that in a lot of North America to keep a job often being able to drive to work is vital, and DUI offenders often have restricted licenses so they can keep their job. This doesn't apply here, your job depends on you having a licence?, should have thought of that before you had a drink, too bad.

Roger.