View Full Version : Gov getting blood and saliva from people on roadsides
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/North-Texas-Drivers-Stopped-at-Roadblock-Asked-for-Saliva-Blood-232438621.html
Not sure how I'd react if they said they wanted that.
Colorado_Outback
11-20-2013, 09:48
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/North-Texas-Drivers-Stopped-at-Roadblock-Asked-for-Saliva-Blood-232438621.html
Not sure how I'd react if they said they wanted that.
Texas highway patrol is also doing road side anal/vaginal cavity searches.
Kraven251
11-20-2013, 10:02
Question 1: Am I being detained?
Statement 1: I would like to contact my attorney prior to having any further discussion with you.
Zundfolge
11-20-2013, 10:23
I suspect the real thing being studied here is not blood or saliva, but the constitutional knowledge of the average American ... the fact that 90% of the people didn't tell the officers to pound sand and then get together in a class action suit against the department tells the police everything they need to know; Americans are compliant sheep that will gladly hand over their constitutional rights at the drop of a hat and for no reason.
Dark days a comin' ... dark days.
"Here's some money. See, we're the good guys! Now just give me all your information."
I suspect the real thing being studied here is not blood or saliva, but the constitutional knowledge of the average American ... the fact that 90% of the people didn't tell the officers to pound sand and then get together in a class action suit against the department tells the police everything they need to know; Americans are compliant sheep that will gladly hand over their constitutional rights at the drop of a hat and for no reason.
Dark days a comin' ... dark days.
A side note would be to see at what cost do people willingly give their blood/saliva.
A side note would be to see at what cost do people willingly give their blood/saliva.
According to the article saliva goes for $10 and blood is $50. Then, the next time it will be free, but "voluntary." After that, it will just be taken.
BushMasterBoy
11-20-2013, 11:20
Dumbass me, thinking "AR" stood for armed revolt...
This just screams violation. I'm not sure how TX law works, but here in CO we have "Expressed Consent"- basically saying by possessing a CO DL you give consent to chemical testing to prove you're safe to drive a car on public highways (IE: roads) IF the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe you are intoxicated.​ The SCOTUS ruled a few years ago that you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" to your bodily fluids (blood), but the catch 22 is- again here, not sure about TX- if you refuse you could lose your license. Still nothing from the Supremes about the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints, but this is way over the line- no presumption and no evidence of any violations prior to the non-consensual stop? I call foul on this.
I suspect the real thing being studied here is not blood or saliva, but the constitutional knowledge of the average American ... the fact that 90% of the people didn't tell the officers to pound sand and then get together in a class action suit against the department tells the police everything they need to know; Americans are compliant sheep that will gladly hand over their constitutional rights at the drop of a hat and for no reason.
Dark days a comin' ... dark days.
+1
Something does not feel wrong... It is wrong. My first thought was on collcting DNA samples.
kidicarus13
11-20-2013, 14:10
"Here's some money. See, we're the good guys! Now just give me all your information."
So close to a bullseye it made me cringe.
kawiracer14
11-20-2013, 14:59
This just screams violation. I'm not sure how TX law works, but here in CO we have "Expressed Consent"- basically saying by possessing a CO DL you give consent to chemical testing to prove you're safe to drive a car on public highways (IE: roads) IF the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe you are intoxicated.​ The SCOTUS ruled a few years ago that you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" to your bodily fluids (blood), but the catch 22 is- again here, not sure about TX- if you refuse you could lose your license. Still nothing from the Supremes about the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints, but this is way over the line- no presumption and no evidence of any violations prior to the non-consensual stop? I call foul on this.
I know that in Bexar County (Where San Antonio is) you are required to give a blood sample if you get pulled over for suspicion of DUI... not sure about the rest of Texas - but its not required when driving - its required on suspicion of DUI.
lowbeyond
11-20-2013, 15:36
Just make it a law
Then people can start saying...
law is the law.
they were just doing their job
i will comply, as i am a law abiding citizen.
That is exactly how it will go. Yep.
PugnacAutMortem
11-20-2013, 15:39
Unreal. In Texas no less.
What is this place going to be like for our kids? For our kids' kids?
rockhound
11-20-2013, 16:20
DNA, not a chance, get a court order buddy
hurley842002
11-20-2013, 17:24
Unreal. In Texas no less.
What is this place going to be like for our kids? For our kids' kids?
I've got a six month old, and am VERY frightened for his future....
In Texas no less.
I don't think Texas in 2013 is quite what Texas in 2003 or 1993 was. The demographics in TX will, all by themselves, shift Texas to the left in the not so distant future.
hghclsswhitetrsh
11-20-2013, 18:04
I'd poop in a cup for em. Molon Aabe this blood and DNA though.
HoneyBadger
11-20-2013, 20:32
Call for your attorney before consenting to anything!
spongejosh
11-20-2013, 20:51
I'd poop in a cup for em. Molon Aabe this blood and DNA though.
They can get your DNA from a cup of your poop.
I'd poop in a cup for em. Molon Aabe this blood and DNA though.
what if it ended up being 2 girls with your one cup?
NO WAY I would consent to that. Will be interesting to see the outcome. If my kid got trapped in something like that, I would certainly be calling my lawyer ASAP.
The SIMPLE solution is if you are caught driving drunk, a year in jail. If you kill someone driving drunk, it is murder. That would cut down on the problem, but then that is responsibility that I am sure a bunch of people on this board would object to.
Americans have to start punishing perpetrators of crimes instead of restricting everyone to the lowest common denominator!
HoneyBadger
11-20-2013, 21:42
Americans have to start punishing perpetrators of crimes instead of restricting everyone to the lowest common denominator!
Yeah... That'll never happen. Quote me on it.
Americans have to start punishing perpetrators of crimes instead of restricting everyone to the lowest common denominator!
Punish perpetrators like the people of Colorado wanted to do with Nathan Dunlap? The same people who want to make us all safe are the same people who won't punish the actual criminals. Punish everyone rather than the guilty. That would be the progressive Democrats in office.
Want some of my blood your going to have to earn it. Careful not to mix it in with yours now.
rockhound
12-18-2013, 06:54
i saw that story, what a crock, how is it we are just so compliant
i have always had a severe disdain for authority. mainly because i am an honest and moral person, i dont like being under suspicion when i know i have not broken the law.
I don't know if that is accurate or not. I refused to pull into a roadside sobriety checkpoint in Sheridan and they did let me pass through, with a tail for 2 miles. I had a Lakewood officer pull me over for failing to signal a lane change. He asked me if he could give me a roadside sobriety test, I refused, he puffed, I asked him to summon his supervisor, he let me go with a warning on the lane change.
I did see they did this again in PA.
DMV takes your license for a year if you refuse to blow. It's part of your license. [flamingo]
I did some research. Apparently, Colorado law requires you submit a breath or blood test if you are arrested for a DUI, UDD, and DWAI, or are a "habitual user" of controlled substances. So you have to actually be arrested. You also have the right to choose the test and it has to be completed within 2 hours.
Colorado law also requires that you consent to a breath test if you have not been arrested. However, this is part of a field sobriety test and Colorado law says you do NOT have to submit to those. In fact the officer should tell you it is voluntary. Maybe some gray area, but the Sheriff deputy and City cop I asked both said they have been trained to state a field test, with a breath test is voluntary. Refusing it, however, probably won’t help if the officer has some other reason to think you had been drinking. Based on that the officer will likely arrest you and then you will be required to take a test under the law.
Seems there are self-incriminating constitutional issues that have bee recognized. So, unless you are arrested, you don't have to consent. I have no tolerance for Drunk Driving and I do want LEOs to have every legal tool at their disposal to get Drunks off the road. We look at the guy who fired a round through the wall in Boulder and crucify him...driving drunk is not that different IMHO.
Driving on public roads is not a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked by the state at any time for any reason. (within the standard non-discrimination limits, race, sex, age, etc)
Yes it is BS but there really is no way to fight it.
Driving on public roads is not a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked by the state at any time for any reason. (within the standard non-discrimination limits, race, sex, age, etc)
Yes it is BS but there really is no way to fight it. Bull! You just choose to be ignorant and accept it, as did I at 16. There are multiple court rulings refuting your assertion. My understanding is that once you give up that right and become licensed, you can no longer make that case. But a person who never applies for a license can fight it and win. There are several who have.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 US 516
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60 U.S. Supreme Court
now when you go to a checkpoint and they make everyone do the test you will have no choice. period.
I went and read the laws and such, even talked to some LEO friends, I do not think that is accurate. It might be more expeditious to waive your rights, but the law can not force you to submit without cause.
Bull! You just choose to be ignorant and accept it, as did I at 16. There are multiple court rulings refuting your assertion. My understanding is that once you give up that right and become licensed, you can no longer make that case. But a person who never applies for a license can fight it and win. There are several who have.
Thanks for the attack.
Good luck with your court case and enjoy your year without a license.
Thanks for the attack.
Good luck with your court case and enjoy your year without a license.
Not an attack, just facts. I put myself in the SAME boat with you. I accepted a license, I therefore have no standing. Why would I lose my license for stating facts. That makes no sense at all.
lowbeyond
12-18-2013, 09:57
You have a right to travel. That includes public roads
That some people write some garbage on a piece of paper and stick in in a Holy Book, and that there are thousands of other people more than willing to dress up and stick a gun in your face and steal your $ on the side of the road doesn't change the fact.
Its a lie that has been repeated so much people actually believe it.
State: Driving is a privilege!
Person: why ?
State: Because we said so. See how that works?!?! Hahahha
lowbeyond
12-18-2013, 10:08
i dont follow you.
"Starting on Jan. 1, any Colorado driver who refuses a sobriety test will be branded a "persistent drunk driver.""
this says nothing of arrest, being drunk, having the odor of an intoxicating beverage. it says any driver who is told to take the sobriety test is now labeled a persistent drunk driver. wow. so, no 5th amendment, no due process. either comply or you will be removed of your ability to drive. nice.
SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 42-1-102, amend
(68.5) as follows:
42-1-102. Definitions. As used in articles 1 to 4 of this title, unless
PAGE 2-HOUSE BILL 13-1240
the context otherwise requires:
(68.5) (a) "Persistent drunk driver" means any person who:
(I) Has been convicted of or had his or her driver's license revoked for two or more alcohol-related driving violations;
(II) who Continues to drive after a driver's license or driving privilege restraint has been imposed for one or more alcohol-related driving offenses;
(III) or who Drives a motor vehicle while the amount of alcohol in such person's blood, as shown by analysis of the person's blood or breath, was 0.17 or more 0.15 OR MORE grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood or 0.17 or more 0.15 OR MORE grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath at the time of driving or within two hours after driving;
OR
(IV) REFUSES TO TAKE OR COMPLETE, OR TO COOPERATE IN THE COMPLETING OF, A TEST OF HIS OR HER BLOOD, BREATH, SALIVA, OR URINE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 18-3-106 (4) OR 18-3-205 (4), .R.S., OR SECTION 42-4-1301.1 (2).
18-3-106 / 205 deal with vehicular homicide/assault.
42-4-1301.1 is the Expressed Consent Bull Shit
§ 42-4-1301.1. Expressed consent for the taking of blood, breath, urine, or saliva sample--testing
(1) Any person who drives any motor vehicle upon the streets and highways and elsewhere throughout this state shall be deemed to have expressed such person's consent to the provisions of this section.
(2)(a)(I) A person who drives a motor vehicle upon the streets and highways and elsewhere throughout this state shall be required to take and complete, and to cooperate in the taking and completing of, any test or tests of the person's breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the person's blood or breath when so requested and directed by a law enforcement officer having probable cause to believe that the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of the prohibitions against DUI, DUI per se, DWAI, habitual user, or UDD. Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a person who is twenty-one years of age or older requests that the test be a blood test, then the test shall be of his or her blood; but, if the person requests that a specimen of his or her blood not be drawn, then a specimen of the person's breath shall be obtained and tested. A person who is under twenty-one years of age shall be entitled to request a blood test unless the alleged violation is UDD, in which case a specimen of the person's breath shall be obtained and tested, except as provided in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a).
So IOW. If you do not consent to blowing, in effect to give the State evidence, or if you just refuse on principle , or for whatever reason. The State says you are a Persistent Drunk Driver
Why? Because Fuck you that's why. So it is WRITTEN, So it SHALL BE ! The Holy Book of the State is Final. If you have nothing to hide. Blah Blah. People love this shit. If it can save one life.. yadda yadda
Quite frankly, you should refuse everything. From stand on one leg, follow the light, chew gum and rub your belly, recite the pledge of allegiance in Klingon, whatever other idiotic thing they come up with. And refuse to blow.
Then just drive. Whatever.
Why on earth should you be forced to give them evidence? What ever happened to the right against self-incrimination. Oh yea.. We erased that one. Why. Because we (the State) have the guns, and are more willing to use them. IOW FU now hand over your $ ! Oh and BTW, now we will require you to buy this interlock thing from our buddy who happens to sell them.
Fascism at its finest - all under the color of Law. Congrats !
Try exercising your right to drive without following the rules (including the licensing rules) set down by the state. See where you and your car end up. When you must ask permission first it is an allowed privilege, not a right.
You can travel on the public roads without driving.
Ranger353
12-18-2013, 10:34
18-3-106 / 205 deal with vehicular homicide/assault.
42-4-1301.1 is the Expressed Consent Bull Shit
So IOW. If you do not consent to blowing, in effect to give the State evidence, or if you just refuse on principle , or for whatever reason. The State says you are a Persistent Drunk Driver
Why? Because Fuck you that's why. So it is WRITTEN, So it SHALL BE ! The Holy Book of the State is Final. If you have nothing to hide. Blah Blah. People love this shit. If it can save one life.. yadda yadda
Quite frankly, you should refuse everything. From stand on one leg, follow the light, chew gum and rub your belly, recite the pledge of allegiance in Klingon, whatever other idiotic thing they come up with. And refuse to blow.
Then just drive. Whatever.
Why on earth should you be forced to give them evidence? What ever happened to the right against self-incrimination. Oh yea.. We erased that one. Why. Because we (the State) have the guns, and are more willing to use them. IOW FU now hand over your $ ! Oh and BTW, now we will require you to buy this interlock thing from our buddy who happens to sell them.
Fascism at its finest - all under the color of Law. Congrats !
The statute states: "(68.5) (a) "Persistent drunk driver" means any person who:
(I) Has been convicted of or had his or her driver's license revoked for two or more alcohol-related driving violations;"
Which means if you are not a two time DUI/DWI-Alcohol related violator then the statute cannot be used against you. There is no "or" after the clause, therefore is a requirement to be met before the other clauses can be invoked. This statute is after the habitual alcoholic driver.
Ranger353
12-18-2013, 11:18
that may well be the "good intentions"
but the new law (according to the article) will label you a persistent drunk driver without being a drunk driver, without due process. just because you said NO. i think its pretty clear. It says any driver who refuses. at least its clear to me.
Don't believe the media, just like anything else, those knucklehead reporters will take liberty with the facts and not always report the truth. Read the statute, it's on-line and free to access.
I'm guilty of this so don't flame, but expressed consent is the key term here... As soon as you were issued a license you consented to chemical tests when asked to prove you are safe to operate a motor vehicle on roadways. It's all in the writing when you went and got your license- I know I didn't read it either.
The question I have on all this- what about sovereign citizens? I've seen examples of these people not having state issued DLs and not having actual plates on their cars (some are downright atrocious attempts at "art"). Technically they don't apply when it comes to expressed consent, but also technically they are legally not allowed to drive on public roads within the state of Colorado. And it's even worse to hear some of them do not recognize the authority of any police department or deputy, only the duly-elected Sheriff of that county.
BPTactical
12-18-2013, 13:38
As far as the new Co law it is pretty clear: you choose to drive in this state you give up your rights to a degree.
How's that for leverage?
On the cheek swabbing, where the fawk is the ACLU (as much as I can't stand them)
centrarchidae
12-18-2013, 14:04
Yes. And let's all trip over ourselves to believe something on 7News, because they never screw up and leave anything important out of the story.
Oh, wait, yes, they did. But since the story as printed supports the "fthapolicerevenuepigsshotmydog" notions around this place, I guess we can let the mistake slide. It fits the narrative.
i dont follow you.
"Starting on Jan. 1, any Colorado driver who refuses a sobriety test will be branded a "persistent drunk driver.""
this says nothing of arrest, being drunk, having the odor of an intoxicating beverage. it says any driver who is told to take the sobriety test is now labeled a persistent drunk driver. wow. so, no 5th amendment, no due process. either comply or you will be removed of your ability to drive. nice.
lowbeyond
12-18-2013, 17:05
ack.. the strikes didn't come though in the copy paste
http://legiscan.com/CO/text/HB1240/id/842712
heck even in the bill summary they say that it applies to refusal
In current law, the definition of "persistent drunk driver"includes
a person who drives a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.17 or more. The bill
lowers this threshold to 0.15 or more. The bill also amends the definition
of "persistent drunk driver" to include a person who refuses to take or
complete, or to cooperate in the completing of, a test of his or her blood,
(68.5) (a) "Persistent drunk driver" means any person who:
(I) Has been convicted of or had his or her driver's license revoked
for two or more alcohol-related driving violations;
(II) who Continues to drive after a driver's license or driving
privilege restraint has been imposed for one or more alcohol-related driving
offenses;
(III) or who Drives a motor vehicle while the amount of alcohol in
such person's blood, as shown by analysis of the person's blood or breath,
was 0.17 or more 0.15 OR MORE grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters
of blood or 0.17 or more 0.15 OR MORE grams of alcohol per two hundred
ten liters of breath at the time of driving or within two hours after driving;
OR
(IV) REFUSES TO TAKE OR COMPLETE, OR TO COOPERATE IN THE
COMPLETING OF, A TEST OF HIS OR HER BLOOD, BREATH, SALIVA, OR URINE
AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 18-3-106 (4) OR 18-3-205 (4), C.R.S., OR SECTION
42-4-1301.1 (2).
OneGuy67
12-18-2013, 17:19
I went and read the laws and such, even talked to some LEO friends, I do not think that is accurate. It might be more expeditious to waive your rights, but the law can not force you to submit without cause.
You are correct. Having run a couple of DUI checkpoints in the past, there is a very strict standard which has to be followed. You do not have everyone conduct roadsides; there must be some indication of intoxication before that is asked of the driver.
blacklabel
12-18-2013, 19:09
The question I have on all this- what about sovereign citizens?
When I was selling cars in Wyoming I had one of these guys go off on me when I asked for his DL before a test drive. I won't go into how I feel about the sovereign citizen movement so I'll just parrot the government and call them terrorists.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.