• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

roadside drug tests - now in use

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&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.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
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
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
ONUS

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

Be safe.

CCJ
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
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
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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

And yet they (are doing) did it anyway....
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
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
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
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:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&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?
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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...:lol:
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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...:lol:

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>
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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". :lol:

Moving on:lol:
 
Top