roadside drug tests - now in use

eye95 said:

The issue is a "meh." Your continuing to beat a dead horse is not.

Duh.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

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:lol:

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>

:lol::lol::lol:

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

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

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/dead-horse.gif

cirrusly said:

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=94874&ref=https://www.google.com/

"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

Click to expand...

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.

countryclubjoe said:

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

Click to expand...

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/pennsylvanians-coerced-into-giving-cheek-swab-at-voluntary-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-enforce-mandatory-blood-tests-at-florida-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.

From the linking sounds like its the same as any other DUI checkpoint but they'll be testing for drugs as well as alcohol. I'm assuming if they meet all the requirments to make it a legal detention then the tool the use to test is irrelevant as long as its no more invasive then already allowed.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

In this case it seems they'll be using the same legal method to detain people at the check point then taking a cheek swap as well as or instead of a PBT. Again if the legal requirements are net for the PBT search then it'd net for the use of the cheek swab unless it got brought to court and they found the cheek swab is more invasive and needs stricter guidelines.

It doesn't seem like enough just to have a positive test. Even if they admitted "yea I smoked crack 10 minutes ago". That's not illegal. Possession is not consumption. I'm not familiar with California but in MA just being on drugs isn't enough. You need to prove actual impairment from said drugs. So even if you had admission of drugs and a hit on the tool you'd still need to back it up with FST that shows impairment.

With alcohol you can build a case based on the per se law .08. I wonder if they'll enact a per se law for drugs? Like a limit to how much THC in your system? I highly doubt it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

In this case it seems they'll be using the same legal method to detain people at the check point then taking a cheek swap as well as or instead of a PBT. Again if the legal requirements are net for the PBT search then it'd net for the use of the cheek swab unless it got brought to court and they found the cheek swab is more invasive and needs stricter guidelines.

It doesn't seem like enough just to have a positive test. Even if they admitted "yea I smoked crack 10 minutes ago". That's not illegal. Possession is not consumption. I'm not familiar with California but in MA just being on drugs isn't enough. You need to prove actual impairment from said drugs. So even if you had admission of drugs and a hit on the tool you'd still need to back it up with FST that shows impairment.

With alcohol you can build a case based on the per se law .08. I wonder if they'll enact a per se law for drugs? Like a limit to how much THC in your system? I highly doubt it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I'm sure the statists will figure out some "necessity" or "justification". Just give 'em time; they'll figure something out.

Citizen said:

I'm sure the statists will figure out some "necessity" or "justification". Just give 'em time; they'll figure something out.

Click to expand...

Per se laws may or may not help the citizen. It takes away a lot of the perception the leos use when conducting FSTs. If the limit is x ppm of say THC the that's the limit. If your under then it doesn't matter what the Leo says about your FSTs it damn near impossible to get a conviction. It just puts even more burden of proof on the leos and not the citizen. As it should be.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Per se laws may or may not help the citizen. It takes away a lot of the perception the leos use when conducting FSTs. If the limit is x ppm of say THC the that's the limit. If your under then it doesn't matter what the Leo says about your FSTs it damn near impossible to get a conviction. It just puts even more burden of proof on the leos and not the citizen. As it should be.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

All of which is underlied by the malum prohibitum nature of the law in the first place.

Its one thing to punish a person for causing a crash becaue he was operating a vehicle while impaired by drugs. Its something else entirely for government to empower itself to cage people just because they partake of the drug and drive.

BEFORE taking advice or opinions from a supposed Mass LEO one might be well to check out the Mass website.

http://www.dmv.org/ma-massachusetts/automotive-law/dui.php

Other Medications and Drugs

You can also expect an officer to pull you over if any prescription, illegal drug, or over-the-counter medication is affecting your ability to drive. Depending on factors specific to your case, you could face an OUI conviction just as you would for drunk driving.

Furthermore, the state will revoke your learner’s permit or driver’s license for any drug conviction. Revocation periods vary between 1 year and 5 years

WalkingWolf said:

BEFORE taking advice or opinions from a supposed Mass LEO one might be well to check out the Mass website.

http://www.dmv.org/ma-massachusetts/automotive-law/dui.php

Other Medications and Drugs

You can also expect an officer to pull you over if any prescription, illegal drug, or over-the-counter medication is affecting your ability to drive. Depending on factors specific to your case, you could face an OUI conviction just as you would for drunk driving.

Furthermore, the state will revoke your learner’s permit or driver’s license for any drug conviction. Revocation periods vary between 1 year and 5 years

Click to expand...

And how does that differ from what I said? Its actually exactly what I said. Not bad for a supposed cop huh

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Citizen said:

All of which is underlied by the malum prohibitum nature of the law in the first place.

Its one thing to punish a person for causing a crash becaue he was operating a vehicle while impaired by drugs. Its something else entirely for government to empower itself to cage people just because they partake of the drug and drive.

Click to expand...

That's a whole different argument and topic

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

And how does that differ from what I said? Its actually exactly what I said. Not bad for a supposed cop huh

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

NO it is not what you said, read your own post for a change. How do you possibly manage to testify in court?

Primus snip " it damn near impossible to get a conviction"

Please folks do not follow this guys advice!

WalkingWolf said:

NO it is not what you said, read your own post for a change. How do you possibly manage to testify in court?

Click to expand...

Ww I'm not doing this with you.

Me and citizen were talking about the methods used for drugs and per se laws. Your derailing and bashing right out of the gate. Find someone else to bash.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Ww I'm not doing this with you.

Me and citizen were talking about the methods used for drugs and per se laws. Your derailing and bashing right out of the gate. Find someone else to bash.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Me calling you out for non cited bogus claims is not bashing. If you can't handle the heat, or own your own posts go pound sand.

Primus said:

Per se laws may or may not help the citizen. It takes away a lot of the perception the leos use when conducting FSTs. If the limit is x ppm of say THC the that's the limit. If your under then it doesn't matter what the Leo says about your FSTs it damn near impossible to get a conviction. It just puts even more burden of proof on the leos and not the citizen. As it should be.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Input from someone that is trained and encouraged to lie and have a motive to misdirect members here to entrap them isn't much help, and needs to be considered accordingly.

Not an attack, rather, a public service bulletin, reminding each and everyone of us to have a safe and joyous New Year and remember, do not talk to police.

WalkingWolf said:

Me calling you out for non cited bogus claims is not bashing. If you can't handle the heat, or own your own posts go pound sand.

Click to expand...

Ww what part was bogus? And what part do you want me to cite? The fact that we have a per se law for oui? I'd your BAL is .08 or greater you are considered drunk and can be convicted even without any field sobriety tests to prove impairment. You can use the manner of operation and the BAL to prove intoxication. So you refuse FSTs but you blow a .240 your three times the limit. The average person is hammered.

Now with drugs we don't have a breathalyzer or pbt to test your blood level of drugs. So say you take a percocet. Even if you don't have a prescription wed have to prove impairment.

Any questions?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Ww I'm not doing this with you.

Me and citizen were talking about the methods used for drugs and per se laws. Your derailing and bashing right out of the gate. Find someone else to bash.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I received no memo or notice, nor can I find one directed to the forum body that you are in any position to determine who participates when or with who here. Calling you out on your deceptions, inconsistencies, inciting manner, derailing of threads and general lack of positive participation isn't bashing.

Correct because I'm not in any position to determine anything. Just like your in no position to regulate me telling him to not bash and stay out of it.

Works both ways my friend....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk