So American police can forcibly take your blood now, apparently?
Is this true or what?
Opinion: Austin, It’s Time to Rise Up
P.O.T.U.S
July 3, 2008It's time to get mad and put the Austin Police Department in their place.
They are now planning to pull you over, and if they suspect you've been drinking, the police will stick a needle in your arm, and take your blood without a warrant. You cannot refuse, and they will do this by force. If you resist, you will be tasered and held down against your will while they remove a "sample".
"My intent in the future is to make it so there is no such thing as a refusal. You can refuse all you want, but we are going to aggressively seek search warrants," said Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, in an interview with KXAN, a local city television station. (See the original article & video report here: http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8581029&rnd=552.5117347010923 )
That's right-- the so-called "peace officer", in charge of serving the public trust and upholding the law and Constitution is going to be pinning you to the ground with his knee, dutifully, while driving a needle into you.
This "No Refusal" DWI policy has already been implemented and field tested in San Antonio (see video below).
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2PZ9qDLLv70PLEASE TAKE five minutes out of your life to voice your disapproval of this coming policy to these Police authorities and our elected city officials. If you've never voiced a complaint before about anything, trust me, it is LEGAL, you will not get in any trouble. In fact, it's rewarding-- You will feel better about yourself.
Tell these people what you think, let them know that instead of spending resources and manpower on violating human rights, the police department should get around to more important issues-- for example, making sure the Governor's mansion is not set on fire and nearly burned to the ground.
Contact any and/or all of the following:
Austin Police Chief Acevado's Office: 512-974-5030
AUstin Police Community Liason Office: 512-974-4700
E-mail the Austin Police Department: apd3@ci.austin.tx.us
Contact the Austin City Council:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/contacts.htmThis policy, which violates basic human rights and the Constitution, is being handed down from the Federal government, not the State of Texas. And it's just the beginning. Today it's your blood, tomorrow the rest of your dignity follows, and finally, you realize you basically have the rights of a slave. Which are listed below.
Think about it: The NAZI's were not even near this level of police invasion. All they asked for were your "papers". These newly trained police officers, the majority of which will be combat-hardened Iraq war veterans, are going to be demanding your blood.
The man wears a bucket of KFC on his head. I wouldn't expect anything less. - Pred
They aren't alone:
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/Forced-Blood-Samples-Raise-Ethical-Concerns-in-Illinois/1$41724
(the url tag is behaving badly with that $ character)
Expect more of this sort of thing - DNA identification is pretty accurate and very useful. It's not even a step from "suspected drunk driver" to "suspect".
Remember: this conversation is just between you and me ... and the NSA.
You have to love a forum with subforums such as "Bilderberg 2008," "Federal Reserve - Instrument of Terror," and "NRO/Comcast/ATT/TimeWarner Gearing up for American Genocide."
That said, that is certainly creepy. I can't imagine how anyone, regardless of political beliefs, would think that would be a good idea.
According to the article, it's done after suspected drunk drivers refuse a breathalyzer test. What kind of people choose to refuse a breathalyzer test when stopped on the road?
In NY and NJ, there is an "implied concent" law which dictates that by the act of driving itself you are consenting to submit to a breathalyzer test if required. If you refuse, the police has a legal ground to arrest you.
Xbox Live tag Gorilla800lbs
Same in NC... Say no to the breathalyzer, they seize your license and you go to jail, do not pass go.
GWJ Alliance on Blackhand
Lunazul - Rouge & GWJ Paparazzo
Merdee - Hunter
Lunarel - Druid
Only guilty people, obviously!
The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid. - Elysium
Wordsmythe is my hero. - rabbit
XBL: E Munnie
Xfire|XBL
gr.umpic.us|grumpicus.com
Commissioner, GWJFFL|GWJFFL2
In Minnesota, very briefly a few years ago, there was a time when the penalty for refusing was less than the penalty for blowing a really high number, which put criminal defense attorneys in the interesting position of having to advise their clients to refuse the test if they thought the client was really drunk. That got fixed.
Anyway, you're all missing the fine print. This policy is only in place until the government gets a working sample of zombie virus. This regulation is scheduled to sunset as soon as they have a replicable sample.
"All that time you waste dating and having sex could be better spent scouring the web for new game developer press releases." - Quintin_Stone
They wont stop until the courts stop them, or if someone dies. I hope the courts stop them first.
And implied consent is fine, as long as they are not taking your god damn blood. Toss you in jail if you refuse a breathalyzer.
Playing WoW as: Vilius (70 NE Druid)
“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.” John K Galbraith
pretty sure here in MN the refusal to take the test is the same as failing it.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
Why would someone refuse a breathalyzer after being stopped for suspicious driving when taking a breathalyzer test effectively clears them of suspicion and puts them on their way?
And if they refuse the test, what's the legal justification for preventing them from continuing on their way?
Yes, refusing to permit a search obviously means someone is guilty: refusing a search is, therefore, grounds for a search.
Edit: I wouldn't make those the legal grounds for a search because the officers should be required to have enough evidence to justify a search through their own observations and the circumstances of the stop. I'm just pointing out that as a practical matter, the number of innocent people who would want to refuse a search in such circumstances is likely to be very small. This isn't an invasive search like a body cavity search or a search of the home that many innocent people would likely refuse. It's not even a pat down. The officer won't even touch you. Someone hands you something and you blow in it.
The blood test is much more invasive, but it's a second step in the process and comes only after refusal of a less invasive test. Given the type of crime being investigated, it seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me. Drunk driving kills and maims a lot of people every year.
Do people have a problem with a court ordering a rape suspect to give blood for DNA matching with a victim?
The problem is the form that the search takes. There's judicial review on that rape case, and the judge has time to check things out and make sure the request is reasonable. These warrants are "assembly-line" - there's no time for the judge to examine the evidence against the suspect, they just rubber-stamp the warrants. That's illegal, and ripe for abuse in a number of ways. Say for example that the police wanted a DNA sample from a suspect for another crime, but couldn't get a warrant. Easy enough, just put a DUI checkpoint near the person's home, wait for the suspect to come through, say the suspect refused the breathalyzer, and force them to get blood taken. It could happen in a matter of hours. It's the police officer's word against the suspect's word.
You must consider not only how a system works, but how a system fails. Our system is intentionally designed with high bars for evidence and procedure to avoid exactly this kind of nebulous, easily-abused system.
I get extremely frustrated with arguments like this. If you had a way to prevent all drunk drivers from driving that required you to send an innocent person to prison every year, would you do it? Drunk driving IS a problem, but trampling on people's basic constitutional rights is not the way to deal with it. Of course, I'm libertarian, so I object to the DUI checkpoints in general, along with the seat-belt silliness, on the same grounds.
Remember: this conversation is just between you and me ... and the NSA.
Right. The issue here is that the evidence is disappearing with every minute it takes to get a warrant, so they take the blood first and undergo judicial review afterwards. The law is not formalistic in the need for prior review and recognizes that a search without a warrant is reasonable in certain narrow circumstances. If the police had no probable cause to take blood, the evidence will get tossed.
No. But that's not what is happening here. Nobody is talking about sending innocent people to prison.
Don't they deduce BAC at time of stop by taking the BAC at the time of the test and the interval between stop and test and then running them through a formula or something?
"All that time you waste dating and having sex could be better spent scouring the web for new game developer press releases." - Quintin_Stone
I'm not talking about having the evidence inadmissable at trial - I'm talking about the police building up a DNA database of suspected drunk drivers, and whoever else they feel like harassing. And this is not a narrow circumstance. A DUI checkpoint is a large-scale dragnet that is looking for anything remotely suspicious.
Are you sure? How do you know? If there's no judicial review besides an automatic warrant approval the suspect is in jail before anyone can blink. What's to stop a police officer from forcing a breathalyzer or blood test on everyone who comes through a checkpoint, drunk or not? The answer to that question is ... nothing. That's the whole point of having to get a warrant, especially when it comes to something as personal as DNA. When you subvert that process, bad things happen.
Remember: this conversation is just between you and me ... and the NSA.
If the police are stopping drivers without any probable cause to add to their department's DNA database, that would be a problem. That's not in the article, however. Where is this happening?
Didn't I see a movie where a guy shouted something about this at a police helicopter?
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats
It's not, right now. But they are setting up a system that would permit such a thing with no checks and no safeguards.
Remember: this conversation is just between you and me ... and the NSA.
I was a juror in a DUI case and after the case was decided we, the jury, asked the judge why a breathalizer test wasn't brought up by either side when other field sobriety tests had been. He said that a person's refusal to take a breathalizer test is inadmissible as evidence. Note, he didn't say that the defendant refused it. Also, this was in MA.
XBox Live: Croutonic | Bungie.net: Croutonic
Bacon is like monkeys - it makes everything better. - Bagga
Rules of evidence vary by state. I think in some other jurisdictions the refusal is considered relevant and non-prejudicial. You also have to separate out the rules of evidence from real life. I honestly can't imagine that there a huge number of people refusing breathalyzers on the road who haven't been drinking, particularly when the police can still arrest you just on the basis of whatever external signs they see.