Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 218

Thread: roadside drug tests - now in use

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760

    roadside drug tests - now in use

    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=9374443

    LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- Local law enforcement has a new tool to crack down on drunken drivers over the New Year's holiday, and drivers could face instant drug tests at DUI checkpoints.


    "If you drink or if you're using drugs, don't drive," said L.A. City Attorney Mike Feuer.

    The L.A. City Attorney's Office received a half-million-dollar federal grant to expand use of a device called the Drager 5000. A swab of saliva is taken from a driver, and within minutes the device analyzes the presence of cocaine, marijuana and other substances. A second saliva swab is taken for independent testing.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Clear 4th 5th and 14th A violations....

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    its all voluntary of course ....

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Does anyone else find it ironic the name of the city attorney ?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Does anyone else find it ironic the name of the city attorney ?
    Yes, classic!

    I am no big fan of drunk drivers, however I am less of a fan when some agent of the G can extract my property without due process...

    My saliva and my blood and my urine belong to me... MY property..

    My .02

    Best regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    ONUS

    I will be looking forward to some of your fine video work. You should be busy New Years Eve...

    Be safe.

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  7. #7
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    This has already specifically been ruled as unconstitutional by SCOTUS back in 2006. They will get sued by anyone with half a brain as to knowing their rights.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story?id=....google.com%2F

    "Am I being detained?"

    Officer: "Yes."

    "Why am I being detained?"

    Officer: "Because this is a random drug checkpoint for public safety."

    Civil suit would be easy win for the plaintiff. In theory you wouldn't even need to fail the roadside drug test. Just an admission of detainment under the premise of "public safety or random drug test" would be wildly unconstitutional, especially given the 2006 SCOTUS ruling.

    Drive through sober, articulate the question as to if/why you're being detained with your recording running- then sue.

    Financial repercussion is the only means to getting many LE agencies to acknowledge or even comprehend constitutional law.






    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    This has already specifically been ruled as unconstitutional by SCOTUS back in 2006. They will get sued by anyone with half a brain as to knowing their rights.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story?id=....google.com%2F

    "Am I being detained?"

    Officer: "Yes."

    "Why am I being detained?"

    Officer: "Because this is a random drug checkpoint for public safety."

    Civil suit would be easy win for the plaintiff. In theory you wouldn't even need to fail the roadside drug test. Just an admission of detainment under the premise of "public safety or random drug test" would be wildly unconstitutional, especially given the 2006 SCOTUS ruling.

    Drive through sober, articulate the question as to if/why you're being detained with your recording running- then sue.

    Financial repercussion is the only means to getting many LE agencies to acknowledge or even comprehend constitutional law.






    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    And yet they (are doing) did it anyway....

  9. #9
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    And yet they (are doing) did it anyway....
    I hope some of our LA / California members are reading this thread. It would be a no/low risk, high reward scenario to drive through one of these if you aren't planning on drinking for New Years.

    I'm usually not one to participate in political activism within the OC realm, but this is cake. If one were within a few hours of me here in NoVA, I'd drive thru.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,507
    Since I am a complete tea-totaler, I'd love to encounter this and ask the officer 'if I pass this test, may I sue you personally for violations of my privacy?'.

    I'm sure they'd find a reason to shoot me...and by that I mean whine and threaten and stomp their little feeties.

    Or even better - 'Officer, I'll take this test if you and all of your other officers will take it in front of me and show me your results', LOL.
    Last edited by Maverick9; 12-29-2013 at 06:33 AM.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Sorry to deflate everybody's happy bubble, but the cited SCOTUS case has no applicability to the situation being discussed.

    BAC/saliva drug screening may be either written in to existing laws on operation of motor vehicles (which we all know is a privilege, not a right) or be a supporttable interpretation of existing laws.

    The thing I see is the PC statement for a roadside drug test is going to be a lot more difficult to sustain than for drunk driving. Many of the drugs do not cause a "recognizable odor" or the physical indica that alcohol does. And I would love to see a statement indicating impaired ability when the situation is a roadside stop as opposed to being followed. Is the cop really going to suggest you were weaving as you rolled up to the stop? And as for nervousness - any time you are near a cop is a good enough reason to be at least slightly apprehensive. They start talking to you and that gets ramped up a notch or two. For most folks the "Am I free to go?" can be quite nerve-wracking.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=9374443

    LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- Local law enforcement has a new tool to crack down on drunken drivers over the New Year's holiday, and drivers could face instant drug tests at DUI checkpoints.


    "If you drink or if you're using drugs, don't drive," said L.A. City Attorney Mike Feuer.

    The L.A. City Attorney's Office received a half-million-dollar federal grant to expand use of a device called the Drager 5000. A swab of saliva is taken from a driver, and within minutes the device analyzes the presence of cocaine, marijuana and other substances. A second saliva swab is taken for independent testing.
    I don't care if they "have a tool." If they are not forcing folks to be swabbed without a warrant and without PC, then this is a non-issue. Are they forcing folks to be swabbed?

  13. #13
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I don't care if they "have a tool." If they are not forcing folks to be swabbed without a warrant and without PC, then this is a non-issue. Are they forcing folks to be swabbed?
    It is an issue to detain citizens without PC... Which is what's being done here, unless I've missed something.
    Advocate freedom please

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    It is an issue to detain citizens without PC... Which is what's being done here, unless I've missed something.
    The issue being raised by the OP is the "new tool." We already have a lot of threads on DUI checkpoints. Personally, I am limiting my discussion to the "new tool." Again, I don't give a crap about the "new tool," as long as they are not forcing people to be subjected to it without PC or a warrant.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  15. #15
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I don't care if they "have a tool." If they are not forcing folks to be swabbed without a warrant and without PC, then this is a non-issue. Are they forcing folks to be swabbed?
    Unless things have changed I don't believe that people can be forced to take a blood test or a breathalyzer, though in some states refusal means surrendering your DL.

    Problem is drunks are stupid and give up their rights. License can always be reinstated if the police cannot prove they are drunk.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Unless things have changed I don't believe that people can be forced to take a blood test or a breathalyzer, though in some states refusal means surrendering your DL...
    Only if they have probable cause to believe that the person is driving under the influence. Unless someone can show that they are using this "new tool" without probable cause or a warrant, I see this as a non-issue.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  17. #17
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Only if they have probable cause to believe that the person is driving under the influence. Unless someone can show that they are using this "new tool" without probable cause or a warrant, I see this as a non-issue.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    A person would think considering Terry V Ohio that the officer would need RAS to even make a stop, and then PC to ask for submission to tests. It is a 5th amendment right to refuse those tests without a warrant.

    I can't see using them at roadside stops without PC holding up in court. If a person is driving erratically, smells of alcohol, has nystagmus, then the officer would have PC. So IMO it IS a issue, even with PC the 5th gives protection to self incriminate, the 4th protects against siezure.

    Moving On...
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    A person would think considering Terry V Ohio that the officer would need RAS to even make a stop, and then PC to ask for submission to tests. It is a 5th amendment right to refuse those tests without a warrant.

    I can't see using them at roadside stops without PC holding up in court. If a person is driving erratically, smells of alcohol, has nystagmus, then the officer would have PC. So IMO it IS a issue, even with PC the 5th gives protection to self incriminate, the 4th protects against siezure.

    Moving On...
    Again, you raise no new issues. I am only going to discuss the concern raised in the FUQ in the OP: the "new tool." You can beat those long-dead horses all you want, I am going to focus like a laser on the "new tool" and if it is being used in some new way, such as forcing folks to submit to it without PC or a warrant.

    So far, I have seen nothing indicating such, so this is a big "meh."


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Again, you raise no new issues. I am only going to discuss the concern raised in the FUQ in the OP: the "new tool." You can beat those long-dead horses all you want, I am going to focus like a laser on the "new tool" and if it is being used in some new way, such as forcing folks to submit to it without PC or a warrant.

    So far, I have seen nothing indicating such, so this is a big "meh."


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Considering there is nothing "new" and you are still posting it is not so much a "meh".

    Moving on
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The issue is a "meh." Your continuing to beat a dead horse is not.

    Duh.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  21. #21
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The issue is a "meh." Your continuing to beat a dead horse is not.

    Duh.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Your continued posting of dead horses is a dead horse. You are the only person I have seen who spends so much time discussing a issue you claim not to be discussing.

    Moving on
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I am not discussing the dead horse distraction that you are trying to use to divert from the "new tool" that is the subject of the FUQ. I am willing to discuss anyone citing a use of the "new tool" in a new way, such as forcing it on folks without PC or a warrant--which, as far as I can tell is not happening.

    IF there is no such use, the topic is a big "meh."

    Not moving on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  23. #23
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279


    "Moving on" but never actually "moving on" or beating the dead horse about beating a dead horse.

    BTW if you don't like the discussion others have go pound sand!

    http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/up...dead-horse.gif
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 12-29-2013 at 01:29 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  24. #24
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    This has already specifically been ruled as unconstitutional by SCOTUS back in 2006. They will get sued by anyone with half a brain as to knowing their rights.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story?id=....google.com%2F

    "Am I being detained?"

    Officer: "Yes."

    "Why am I being detained?"

    Officer: "Because this is a random drug checkpoint for public safety."

    Civil suit would be easy win for the plaintiff. In theory you wouldn't even need to fail the roadside drug test. Just an admission of detainment under the premise of "public safety or random drug test" would be wildly unconstitutional, especially given the 2006 SCOTUS ruling.

    Drive through sober, articulate the question as to if/why you're being detained with your recording running- then sue.

    Financial repercussion is the only means to getting many LE agencies to acknowledge or even comprehend constitutional law.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I think you're going apples-oranges here. In Indianapolis they were conducting random vehicle searches; here what they are doing is looking for impaired drivers. I can see government arguments that the saliva test is just like breath tests; that long ole slippery slope.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    My saliva and my blood and my urine belong to me... MY property..
    CCJ and all,

    You can add DNA to the list.

    I'm sure you've seen the articles about the Nazi-style roadside checkpoints where drivers are being coerced into providing DNA samples.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XZ1mJohJoo

    What has been happening is that a private firm with a Federal contract - and backed up by armed off-duty highly intimidating city police - are forcing motorists off a Pennsylvania street and into private parking lots to question them about their driving habits and ask for a DNA swab of their mouth. This has been happening in other states as well.

    The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation was hired by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to run the checkpoint, during which motorists were quizzed about their driving habits, Infowars News reported.

    http://www.infowars.com/pennsylvania...ry-checkpoint/

    And the Feds with local gestapos have been forcing drivers into submitting to mandatory blood tests for years now, as was reported by Infowars back in 2010.

    Feds, Police Enforce Mandatory Blood Tests At Florida Checkpoints

    http://www.infowars.com/feds-police-...a-checkpoints/

    And TSA has a new checkpoint system called the VIPR program. This roadside checkpoint system includes a roving network of internal checkpoints in airports, bus terminals and subway stations to roads and highways across the United States.

    Up until just recently, commercial trucks and other vehicles only were subject to warrantless searches and radiation scans at specially designated “state-owned inspection stations” traditionally set up at rest stops next to highways. But now these internal checkpoints, run by Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and the TSA, are being expanded to normal roads and highways, unleashing an army of TSA agents who will be given a free hand to litter America with internal checkpoints in a chilling throwback to Soviet-style levels of control over the population.

    And the Feds now have hundreds of backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that they are now using to randomly scan vehicles, passengers and homes in complete violation of the 4th amendment and with wanton disregard for any health consequences.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •