roadside drug tests - now in use

[OC for ME]

Well oc I would agree. Except last I checked it was found constitutional. In fact if your so certain its not, then go through one. Get arrested then appeal and show us all how unconstitutional it is. Your not the first guy to claim it isn't. They modified it so it does hold up. You leave out the part its designed a certain way (ie. Placement of checkpoint, notification, etc.) As to meet the constitutionality requirements.

For the record I don't even work DUI checkpoints and this literally doesn't affect me personally in any way. This is me just calling out bogus claims.

I get it you may not AGREE with it or many other things. I actually respect that believe it or not. But to just label stuff you disagree with as "unconstitutional" just isn't accurate. Even if its honest to god your opinion it isn't and you've spent days or weeks researching it, doesn't change it. Its still opinion.

I'm starting to believe more and more words get tossed around for flavor more then accuracy. Like tyrant, oppression, unconstitutional, etc.

Again I respect your personal opinion (more then some guys on here) but opinion is not fact. Remember the OEO thing?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I don't use OEO.

Checkpoints are unconstitutional no matter what any court says and you know this to be true. The manner in which they are conducted has been tweaked because the checkpoint is unconstitutional. How on earth any cop, who may have sworn a oath to "support and/or defend the constitution", falls back on "it's constitutional if done just the right way" escapes me.

The random stopping of a citizen without RAS is beyond me. How is a checkpoint different than you randomly stopping a traveling citizen? The court(s) opinion is the difference you may say? BS. The concept is the same whether you are moving (you randomly stopping a motorist to check for beer breath) or you are stopped already (stopping motorists and checking for beer breath).

Your inability to discern, or acknowledge, the irony and hypocrisy does not escape many folks around here.

You are advocating that the citizen, by not going around the checkpoint, has agreed to the unwarranted detention.

Treat a checkpoint as any other unwanted and unwarranted cop detention. "I do not consent to this encounter." "Am I free to go?" Make those two statements and see what happens.

Note: I have two signs, laminated, that show those two phrases, that are above the visor in my vehicle.....for just such a emergency. Maybe I should combine them into one. I must stop, am I compelled to interact? If I hear of one I'll give it a try and get back to you.

Of course, I could be hauled out at gun point for not "cooperating."

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

And instead of realizing I'm trying to help with helpful criticism you label it "apologetics". Do you see the irony?

" I can do it but you can't! When I do it its criticism and for freedom when you do its apologetics, whining, and tyrannical!"

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Can you point out where you've been asked for help here? It seems your posts are more like forced feeding of statism. You interject yourself into threads, and the resulting responses are typically more closely related to challenges than requests for help. See the difference?

There are well respected attorneys and confirmed law enforcement people here we've traditionally turned to for advice and input, based on them earning our trust and respect. Those that come here and demand trust and respect seem to flash in the pan and fade back into that nothingness they came from. Which is good, because who wants to indulge that kind of immature, delusional nonsense?

 

[countryclubjoe]

I don't use OEO.

Checkpoints are unconstitutional no matter what any court says and you know this to be true. The manner in which they are conducted has been tweaked because the checkpoint is unconstitutional. How on earth any cop, who may have sworn a oath to "support and/or defend the constitution", falls back on "it's constitutional if done just the right way" escapes me.

The random stopping of a citizen without RAS is beyond me. How is a checkpoint different than you randomly stopping a traveling citizen? The court(s) opinion is the difference you may say? BS. The concept is the same whether you are moving (you randomly stopping a motorist to check for beer breath) or you are stopped already (stopping motorists and checking for beer breath).

Your inability to discern, or acknowledge, the irony and hypocrisy does not escape many folks around here.

You are advocating that the citizen, by not going around the checkpoint, has agreed to the unwarranted detention.

Treat a checkpoint as any other unwanted and unwarranted cop detention. "I do not consent to this encounter." "Am I free to go?" Make those two statements and see what happens.

Note: I have two signs, laminated, that show those two phrases, that are above the visor in my vehicle.....for just such a emergency. Maybe I should combine them into one. I must stop, am I compelled to interact? If I hear of one I'll give it a try and get back to you.

Of course, I could be hauled out at gun point for not "cooperating."

Hi Folks
I just ordered 500 wallet sized cards with the following, " I do not consent to this encounter. " Am I free to go?" If no, my attorney's name is listed on the opposite side of this document...

Best regards

CCJ

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

But yet your still here bashing away making everyone else look bad.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I don't make anyone do anything. That's a cop thing...."look what you made me do", a failure to take personal responsibility for yourself, assigning responsibility to the victims of your actions. You do what you do to people, they don't "make" you do anything. Grow up and take responsibility for yourself and your actions. DO NOT blame others for what you do. Don't project that kind of demented thinking on me. You can try, of course, but it will get handed right back to you.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Goon--

A thug hired to intimidate or harm opponents.

A stupid or deliberately foolish person..

A hired hoodlum or thug.

The term seems to fit the actions of the individuals referenced... However the term "CRIMINAL" also comes to mind..

My .02

Best regards

CCJ

 

[OC for ME]

Proactive policing is what a "checkpoint" is. My refusal to cooperate will quickly escalate, on paper anyway, to resisting arrest.

"Checkpoints" are a affront to the 4A and every cop knows this, or should know this. It boils down to nothing more than the state declaring that your privilege can be interrupted because you agreed to the terms and conditions of driving.

I wonder, if I am not observed "breaking the law" must I show my papers? The random checking of a drivers compliance, without RAS of a crime, of operating a motor vehicle without a license is verboten, if I am not mistaken.

Cop: "Can I see your DL and insurance card? Please, Sir."
Me: "Respectfully officer, no."
Cop: Do you have a DL and insurance card?"
Me: "Yes."
Cop: "You are required to present them upon demand when stopped by a LEO."
Me: "True, if I am suspected of a crime or infraction while operating a motor vehicle in the state of MO." "Am I suspected of a crime or infraction?" "Thus justifying you stopping me under RSMo?"
Cop: "....."

Cops like doing them because it can be easy duty, and your buddies are with you to boot. Sure beats rolling up on a drunk all by yourself, on the side of the road, at night.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

~SNIP

For the record I don't even work DUI checkpoints and this literally doesn't affect me personally in any way. This is me just calling out bogus claims.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Funny, it sounds exactly like someone / you demanding everyone conform to their / your statist beliefs.

12 states do not allow police checkpoints. The states in which sobriety checkpoints are not legal are Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. In Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington, sobriety checkpoints are not allowed because they violate the state constitutions. I think it should worded that "the state recognizes the right to be free of ...." rather than doesn't allow, indicting the state is in a position to be benevolent, leashing their predatory agents in this instance.

 

[eye95]

...A random stop, by cops at "DUI" checkpoint, cannot give the cop PC before the stop. The refusal to do a test is a (should be) a response to a "casual request." But, the stop is not consensual, the citizen is detained without RAS at a minimum...

The point I was making (to which your reply has no relation) was that the arrest will not be for refusal to consent (as was contended in the post to which I replied). By the time the cop is asking for a sample, he already has PC and can already arrest. Likely by the time of the request for the sample, the arrest has already occurred.

So, the arrest will not be for refusing the test. The arrest will be for the DUI for which the cop already had PC.

I was saying nothing about the stop or having PC for the stop. I was only addressing a poster's contention that he'd be arrested for refusing the test. He'd be arrested for the DUI. The PC that allows the request for the test allows arrest.

As an aside, anyone giving the sample, in the full knowledge that he is under the influence, is an idiot. He's gonna lose the license anyway. Why make the conviction that will carry other consequences any easier? They'll probably get the conviction anyway. But, again, don't help them!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

The point I was making (to which your reply has no relation) was that the arrest will not be for refusal to consent (as was contended in the post to which I replied). By the time the cop is asking for a sample, he already has PC and can already arrest. Likely by the time of the request for the sample, the arrest has already occurred.

So, the arrest will not be for refusing the test. The arrest will be for the DUI for which the cop already had PC.

I was saying nothing about the stop or having PC for the stop. I was only addressing a poster's contention that he'd be arrested for refusing the test. He'd be arrested for the DUI. The PC that allows the request for the test allows arrest.

As an aside, anyone giving the sample, in the full knowledge that he is under the influence, is an idiot. He's gonna lose the license anyway. Why make the conviction that will carry other consequences any easier? They'll probably get the conviction anyway. But, again, don't help them!

My response to your post was off the mark as I had a different train of thought when responding. My apologies for the distraction. The op is about testing for booze and drugs on the spot via a cheek swab. Checkpoints were mentioned in the op linked news story. The new "tool" would give a instantaneous-ish confirmation of the degree of "intoxication." Beyond a checkpoint, a cop would have to have RAS to stop and then obtain PC to arrest for the alleged DUI charge. Not sure how that happens if the arrest is for DUI and that cannot be proven on the spot.

Regarding your post, as i should have, how can a cop have PC for a DUI arrest before he tests for intoxication? At most the cop has RAS to conduct the stop (non-checkpoint) to investigate a possible DUI. Since FSTs have been in use for many years, so too has breathalyzers, the new "tool" would not be required to provide PC for a DUI arrest if a test, of some type, is conducted. A citizen could/should refuse such testing (all testing) and will likely be arrested for their refusal to comply with that cop's orders. A danged if you do and danged if you don't situation in my view.

As a side note, O'Doul's will give you beer breath just as would its high test brethren.

If I remain off-base please let me know. I do not desire to become tedious on this issue. Thanks in advance.

 

[countryclubjoe]

The point I was making (to which your reply has no relation) was that the arrest will not be for refusal to consent (as was contended in the post to which I replied). By the time the cop is asking for a sample, he already has PC and can already arrest. Likely by the time of the request for the sample, the arrest has already occurred.

So, the arrest will not be for refusing the test. The arrest will be for the DUI for which the cop already had PC.

I was saying nothing about the stop or having PC for the stop. I was only addressing a poster's contention that he'd be arrested for refusing the test. He'd be arrested for the DUI. The PC that allows the request for the test allows arrest.

As an aside, anyone giving the sample, in the full knowledge that he is under the influence, is an idiot. He's gonna lose the license anyway. Why make the conviction that will carry other consequences any easier? They'll probably get the conviction anyway. But, again, don't help them!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Hi Eye95
Hi Folks,

Eye95 is correct, a citizen will not be arrested for any refusal to summit to a blood or saliva test or the sobriety road side joke test. Nor will a citizens refusal be used against the citizen in citizens DUI hearing/case. Now here is where I have an issue with the whole driver license procedure and EYE95 helped solidify my argument... If a citizen is found innocent of the DUI charge verse the state... The DMV can still revoke a citizens so-called privilege to operate a motor vehicle, simply because a citizen refused to incriminate himself at the scene of his DUI arrest...
Think of the Unconstitutionality of this ACT by the DMV... They are essentially telling a citizen, hey citizen, if you enter into a contract with us/DMV and you are stopped and detained for suspected DUI and you do not submit or supply so called evidence against yourself (via blood or breath or urine etc) or if you exercise your right to remain silent at the scene and should you be exonerated via the court vs the state, WE , DMV shall still impose sanctions against your drivers license.... and therefore the DMV shall strip the citizen of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle...
Simply because a citizen exercised his rights at the scene.... The DMV's position is that a citizen by refusal to COMPLY is still there in fact guilty..
Sound Unconstitutional?

So equate this to OC, A LAC open carrying is detained by a LEO, LEO request permit, or license or ID etc. or proof of weapon ownership. ETC, Law abiding citizens refuses the LEO request... Citizens is then arrested for some BS trumped up charge) however at citizens hearing all the charges are dismissed and LAC is exonerated.. But low and behold, LAC is contacted via the state and the fed and informed that his 2A right to keep and bear arms is being terminated due in part to citizens "Failure to COMPLY"... Sound Unconstitutional?

Point is, a License/contract SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED to exercise a right.. Whether that right is "to keep and bear arms" or simply the right " to Travel"

Why would any sane person agree to contract with any agency of the G, unless under " Duress" via threat of jail and or fines, fees, etc...?

I DO NOT CONDONE DRINKING AND DRIVING OR DUI, licensed or unlicensed!
I DO NOT CONDONE OPEN CARRYING A WEAPON WHEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL..



My .02

Best regards

CCJ

 

[eye95]

Thank you for that acknowledgment. Too many times here, folks (including some very powerful ones) do not read what is actually written, and react based on what they thought was written. I see some real class from CCJ and OCfM in this thread--unlike an experience I recently had from another poster here (a very powerful one) who finally admitted his ignorance of what was written, but stuck to his guns (pardon the pun) anyway.

Folks can learn a lot from those two posters--even if you have a philosophical disagreement with them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[WalkingWolf]

If during a hearing the judge finds there is no PC for the arrest the license is reinstated, at least it was while I was still working. That is why it is so important for there to be solid evidence for PC for a conviction. Not getting solid evidence is sloppy, lazy, incompetent police work.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

...
I thought this was an gun forum. More specifically a openly carried handgun forum. Yet everyday it feels more and more like cop watch or some other anti government website. Looking through the time line on my phone its showing almost 2 to 1 ratio of cop bashing threads to actual gun topics. So be it you boys enjoy your "discussions"

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Cops on power trips, cops who have lost their ethics and are ok with violating person's rights in the name of safety or public interest or the general good, or cops who aren't willing to jeopardize their pay to refuse orders from a power-tripping politician/commanding officer, are the single biggest threat to open carry, IMO. Perhaps that's why people talk about them so much on this open carry forum.

 

[eye95]

Cops on power trips, cops who have lost their ethics and are ok with violating person's rights in the name of safety or public interest or the general good, or cops who aren't willing to jeopardize their pay to refuse orders from a power-tripping politician/commanding officer, are the single biggest threat to open carry, IMO. Perhaps that's why people talk about them so much on this open carry forum.

Not all cops are on power trips. And the phenomenon is not limited to cops. Many petty functionaries abuse their power thuggishly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Not all cops are on power trips. And the phenomenon is not limited to cops. Many petty functionaries abuse their power thuggishly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

All true...

 

[JoeSparky]

Originally Posted by eye95
No deceit at all. It is common knowledge that the privilege of driving is licensed and regulated. One of those regulations is that, to get and keep a license, you agree to submit to testing when an officer has PC. If you don't want to submit, it's simple: either never get the license, or give it up.

I know you don't like it, but there is no deceit, and it is reality.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

the response of joesparky

You may know this, and I may know this, as well as many others on this forum, but that is a very long way from "COMMON KNOWLEDGE' in the general population as you would describe it.

Driving being a licensed privilege is not common knowledge????? OK.

You may not accept it. A few others here may not. But the overwhelming majority accept this bit of reality.

The above is a copy and paste of our exchange IN A VACUUM----
Yes, I will admit the reading this single post or yours and my response without context of this forum and sequence of various postings your allegation would seem to be true. BUT, this exchange was NOT made in a vacuum of a single post of yours and my response.

Since, you seem to want to persist in taking my statement OUT OF THE CONTEXT of this series of postings. My statement of which you quoted was directed towards the IMPLIED CONSENT of allowing Field sobriety test or breathalyzer checks as a CONDITION of obtaining a Driver's License and not intended to say that it is not common knowledge the one may need a drivers license to lawfully operate a motor vehicle on the road. Please forgive me, oh great one who is the font of all knowledge (no caps here for sarcasm benefit) for not making this completely clear so as to prevent ANYONE from taking my statement OUT OF CONTEXT.


I will restate my claim of your taking my statement OUT OF CONTEXT and point out the dis-ingenuousness of yourself in so doing! BTW--- disingenuous is another word for stating DISHONESTY!

 

[eye95]

The context of the "common knowledge" was me saying that it is common knowledge the driving is a privilege and regulated, period. You tried to argue with THAT point.

I suggest looking at how CCJ and OCfM handled such a disconnect with CLASS!

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[JoeSparky]

The context of the "common knowledge" was me saying that it is common knowledge the driving is a privilege and regulated, period. You tried to argue with THAT point.

I suggest looking at how CCJ and OCfM handled such a disconnect with CLASS!

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Dude, please read the SECOND sentence of YOUR posting that I just posted in post #161!

 

[eye95]

Moved on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You misunderstand the meaning of "liberty centric" by equating it to only mean 2A.

As to name calling, I don't particularly agree with it, but what should a true goon cop be called? Sure as ****, the word we're looking for isn't "hero"...

+1

Notice he doesn't like anyone calling it unconstitutional yet he has provided no cites from the constitution that make it so. My reading of the constitution tells me that government is restricted to its enumerated powers, and specifically in the BOR, must not infringe on things like our feeling secure in our person and effects........sounds to me that would make a random stop by threat of violence by the states costumed agents would violate those principles.


Some doth protest to much. Cops and petty functionaries who enforce state rules over law, who disregard their restraints are tyrants, are goons, are thugs, softening language because it has become politically incorrect to point out the errors of the ordained knight/samurai class does the public a disservice. Those who think that's name calling should actually read some of what the colonist wrote about their British government and its enforcers. I also find it amusing that the guy whining the most has so many posts calling names and making false imputations on others.

Another point, he keeps whining about posts not being on topic in what is essentially the off topic portion of the forum, the social lounge. I think he thought he was going to come in here with his agenda and straighten us out, instead of coming in with an open mind and learning something.