"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa - your blood WILL be taken.

[Anti Federalist]

Every day that goes by, I ask, "what next" or "is this the straw that will break the camel's back?"

And every time, I'm always amazed at Americunt's ability to comply with just about anything, anymore.

I suspect this will be no different.

Feel up my eight year old daughter at the airport? Fine, if it's for safety.

Jab a needle in my arm on the side of the road? Fine, if it's for safety.

Jail more people than any other nation on earth? Fine, if it's for safety.

Invade foreign nations and exterminate large swaths of their population? Fine, if it's for safety.

Erect a surveillance grid that will monitor your every move in real time? Fine, if it's for safety.




"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250

Tampa, Florida-- With New Year's Eve only days away, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects this to be one of the deadliest weeks of the year on the roads.

But now a new weapon is being used in the fight against drunk driving.

It's a change that could make you more likely to be convicted.

"I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.

Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.

It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.

It's already being done in several counties, and now Unfried is working to bring it to the Tampa Bay area.

"I think you'll see the difference because people will not drink and drive. I truly believe that," she said.

Not everyone is on board, though.

DUI defense attorney Kevin Hayslett sees the mandatory blood test as a violation of constitutional rights.

"It's a slippery slope and it's got to stop somewhere," Hayslett explained, "what other misdemeanor offense do we have in the United States where the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?"

The federal government says Florida has among the highest rates of breathalyzer refusal.

"Now you've got attorneys telling their clients, don't blow, don't blow! Because we know from the results from these machines that they're not operating as the state or the government says they're supposed to operate," said Stephen Daniels, a DUI consultant and expert witness.

Supporters, though, say you could see the "no refusal" checkpoints in the Bay area by October.

"We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.

(So, they don't want to, it's the last thing they want to do, but by God, we'll do it, to "save lives" - AF)

She adds that this type of checkpoint would be heavily advertised, with the goal of deterring any drunk driving.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently said he wants to see more states hold similar programs.

 

[Kylie]

Fucking cunts. The whole lot of them.

I will not comply. You will hear about me on the news. I'll be the tazered/dead one.

Unfortunately for me, I will get lost in the long list of people the cops have murdered that particular day.

 

[squarepusher]

i think people should be able to drive as drunk as they want

 

[Anti Federalist]

And in Texas.

Take the poll, 51 opposed to 49 support right now.



'No Refusal' Weekend Program To Exist Year-Round

http://www.ksat.com/news/26315388/detail.html

SAN ANTONIO -- Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed announced plans this week to extend "No Refusal" weekends to every weekend in 2011 as opposed to certain holiday weekends, like New Year's and the Fourth of July.

The move to extend the program drew positive words from Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

"We're pretty excited about that," said Daniel Garza, youth program specialist with MADD. "It was a great pleasure to hear that this morning that law enforcement is going to get another good tool to be able to combat drunk driving here in San Antonio."

With an estimated 6,000 drunken driving arrests in Bexar county for 2010, MADD feels the program will cut down on arrests in 2011.

"When they're announced and everyone knows that they're coming, they serve as a deterrent," Garza said. "It would be a great pleasure to see it become 365 days."

But criminal lawyers who handle DWI cases see it differently.

"I guess the message they're sending is, 'Get drunk during the week,'" said Jamie Balagia, a lawyer who goes by "DWI Dude".

"They're saying, 'You give us a breath specimen or you give us a blood specimen or we're going to take it anyway,'" George Scharmen, a criminal defense lawyer.

Scharmen said with the district attorney's refusal to take plea bargains in DWI cases, the new policy won't do anything but stretch out cases. He said he has some cases that have waited five years to get to court.

"You have motions to suppress breath and blood draws on the basis of a bad search warrant, on the basis of involuntariness," Scharmen said.

"If they don't have enough evidence against you to make a solid case, how is what little they have enough for a judge to sign a warrant?" added Balagia.

Reed's office released statistics from nine No Refusal weekends between May 2008 and the Fourth of July weekend in 2010. The stats showed that 312 blood tests were taken with an average blood alcohol level of 0.159, nearly twice the legal limit. Twenty-nine of the tests were below the legal limit.

"If you have a special program, there should be a goal and a goal that you can actually show statistically that there's benefit," Balagia said. "Susan Reed can't do that."

"The implication is that on the No Refusal weekend they have a tendency to get more convictions or they have a tendency to get better evidence," Scharmen said.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

AF you will especially like this from Nock.

http://mises.org/daily/4894

I believe that when the historian looks back on the last 20 years of American life, the thing that will puzzle him most is the amount of self-inflicted punishment that Americans seem able to stand. They take it squarely on the chin at the slightest provocation and do not even wait for the count before they are back for more.

 

[Anti Federalist]

AF you will especially like this from Nock.

http://mises.org/daily/4894

I believe that when the historian looks back on the last 20 years of American life, the thing that will puzzle him most is the amount of self-inflicted punishment that Americans seem able to stand. They take it squarely on the chin at the slightest provocation and do not even wait for the count before they are back for more.

God, that was depressing, considering that was written in 1936.

But apparently they could not rest until they threw their freedom away. They made a present of it to their own politicians, who have made them sweat for their gullibility ever since. They put their liberties in the hands of a praetorian guard made up exactly on the old Roman model, and not only never got them back, but as long as that praetorian guard of professional politicians lives and thrives — which will be quite a while if its numbers keep on increasing at the present rate — they never will.

Fuck me, it's stuff like that, that makes me want to go hunt up the nearest Agent, turn in Zion's secret codes and take the blue pill.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well, you must admit yourself you are willing to take it up on the chin when it concerns individuals trading with foreign entities. Here is a great piece from Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.

http://mises.org/daily/4934

Economic Nationalism Is a Philosophy of War

So, let us reject taxation and tariffs as anything, but most harmful and deletorious.

 

[devil21]

There's goes your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. If they are forcefully withdrawing blood even against your wishes then they are forcing you to incriminate yourself. Does this also act as a violation of your right to remain silent? Is the right to remain silent ONLY regarding audible sounds? This will be an interesting test for the courts but I think we know what the outcome will be.

 

[MelissaWV]

The stupid thing is that you already consent to certain things when you get your license, HOWEVER up until now you've always had the ability to refuse and simply scoot off to jail or home or some other alternative. Now, if you refuse, they're going to jab a needle in your arm. Is it sterile? Are they going to ask you about medical conditions you might have that drawing that much blood at random might bring out? Are they going to be considerate of people with small veins (who might also be sick of having their blood drawn, because it has to be done regularly)? Are they going to see track marks on some folks and arrest them on suspicion of being heroin users? Are the testing machines themselves going to be calibrated, cleaned, and maintained out in the field?

Even the staunchest statist should realize that the above concerns are a big deal and would taint the results and the entire project.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

"We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.

"Furthermore, at one point Trooper Allick told Defendant that he respected Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Video at 16:50. However, one cannot respect another’s Fourth Amendment rights and simultaneously punish that same person for exercising them. Had the other reasons Trooper Allick claimed after the fact been the true basis for any suspicion he may have had, he would have cited those reasons when explaining the situation during the stop on April 14, 2010. Instead, he referred only to Defendant’s exercise of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent, and he did so on six different occasions. Accordingly, this Court finds those later-mentioned reasons suspect.

. . .

In light of the totality of the circumstances and the evidence before it, the Court holds that Trooper Allick lacked an articulable factual basis to suspect wrongdoing. His continued detention of Defendant therefore violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights."

United States v. Jackson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110898 (W.D. Tex. October 13, 2010

 

[Anti Federalist]

"Furthermore, at one point Trooper Allick told Defendant that he respected Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Video at 16:50. However, one cannot respect another’s Fourth Amendment rights and simultaneously punish that same person for exercising them. Had the other reasons Trooper Allick claimed after the fact been the true basis for any suspicion he may have had, he would have cited those reasons when explaining the situation during the stop on April 14, 2010. Instead, he referred only to Defendant’s exercise of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent, and he did so on six different occasions. Accordingly, this Court finds those later-mentioned reasons suspect.

. . .

In light of the totality of the circumstances and the evidence before it, the Court holds that Trooper Allick lacked an articulable factual basis to suspect wrongdoing. His continued detention of Defendant therefore violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights."

United States v. Jackson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110898 (W.D. Tex. October 13, 2010

Nice, nice find.

Way to cite precedent.

+rep

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Are they going to see track marks on some folks and arrest them on suspicion of being heroin users?

That is certain.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

Nice, nice find.

Way to cite precedent.

+rep

"Mr. Hunnicutt's assertion is not without evidentiary basis. Officer Raines explicitly testified that the refusal to consent persuaded him Mr. Hunnicutt "had something to hide." III R. at 30. Although ample other factors supporting reasonable suspicion were present here, as well as alternative justifications for all searching and further detention, we emphasize that refusal to consent should not have been considered in determining reasonable suspicion.

...

Any other rule would make a mockery of the reasonable suspicion and probable cause requirements, as well as the consent doctrine. These legal principles would be considerably less effective if citizens' insistence that searches and seizures be conducted in conformity with constitutional norms could create the suspicion or cause that renders their consent unnecessary.

United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (10th Cir. 1998)

 

[LibForestPaul]

The stupid thing is that you already consent to certain things when you get your license
Even the staunchest statist should realize that the above concerns are a big deal and would taint the results and the entire project.

Indeed. So one has a license to drive, and refuses to consent. Why such an intrusion? Could not a Breathalyzer refusal punishment fine simply be made greater than that of a DUI offense? The reasons given for this being NECESSARY are lies.

 

[economics102]

This is of course a rather disturbing development. But, I have to ask out of fairness to the state law enforcement -- if breathalyzer tests are unreliable (and thus refused on good advice from lawyers) and a mandatory blood test is of course highly objectionable, how DOES the state enforce it's 0.8 blood-achohol rule? It sounds like we would either need some other more accurate non-invasive test, or the law would have to be written based on some other measurement.

So, how should things be done? How can anyone be convicted of a DUI without either test?

 

[Anti Federalist]

This is of course a rather disturbing development. But, I have to ask out of fairness to the state law enforcement -- if breathalyzer tests are unreliable (and thus refused on good advice from lawyers) and a mandatory blood test is of course highly objectionable, how DOES the state enforce it's 0.8 blood-achohol rule? It sounds like we would either need some other more accurate non-invasive test, or the law would have to be written based on some other measurement.

So, how should things be done? How can anyone be convicted of a DUI without either test?

The way it used to be done, obvious impairment.

.08 BAC effects each person differently, some, more so than others.

That's assuming that there should even be such a thing as drunk driving laws, which I don't think there should be.

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The blood drawing at the side of the road is one thing to make note of... what is worse is the "drive through justice system".

Judges, just waiting at the side of the road, to aid and abet the gestapo's actions.

Checks and balances are supposed to prevent the "deciders" from coordinated actions with the "enforcers".

Now all we need is a majority of congressmen at the side of the road so they can create laws at the same time. Law create, enforced, and your guilt all proven in less than minutes.

No, what will happen is that those persons will just give their powers to one 'job'. We will all have Judge Dredd's on the side of road. Lovely picture, that is, isn't it?

 

[amy31416]

The stupid thing is that you already consent to certain things when you get your license, HOWEVER up until now you've always had the ability to refuse and simply scoot off to jail or home or some other alternative. Now, if you refuse, they're going to jab a needle in your arm. Is it sterile? Are they going to ask you about medical conditions you might have that drawing that much blood at random might bring out? Are they going to be considerate of people with small veins (who might also be sick of having their blood drawn, because it has to be done regularly)? Are they going to see track marks on some folks and arrest them on suspicion of being heroin users? Are the testing machines themselves going to be calibrated, cleaned, and maintained out in the field?

Even the staunchest statist should realize that the above concerns are a big deal and would taint the results and the entire project.

I pass out from blood tests, and actually had a petit mal seizure the first time I tried to donate blood. I'd cause 'em some problems...especially because my veins are extremely difficult to find, the last GP I had couldn't find them...yeah...I'd probably sue.

Seriously...a cop drawing blood on the side of the road--how much more insane can it get?

Nuns/old ladies/folks with medical conditions being humiliated by the TSA.
Cops shooting little girls.
Cops shooting harmless dogs.
Cops shooting restrained people in the back.
Cops stealing your cash/valuables and getting away with it due to "suspicion."
Cops/CPS taking kids because of your politics.

None of that will motivate anyone to take real action...the only motivator will be when the welfare/SS checks stop rolling in.

Don't know what else to say...there's no words.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

..