4th Amendment suspended in Texas and Alabama?

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
Ordinarily, law enforcement has my full support. Especially in matters of protecting us from drunk drivers. ...But this is a serious WTF moment:

"Texas Police Ask Drivers for Blood Samples, Secretly Test Those Who Refuse"
DailyTech - Texas Police Ask Drivers for Blood Samples, Secretly Test Those Who Refuse

"The Fort Worth Police Department (FWPD) installed the roadblock north of the city during daytime traffic. They flagged down some motorists at random and asked them to give breath, saliva, and blood samples. The FWPD claims the effort was "100 percent voluntary" and anonymous.

It acknowledges that most of the drivers had broken no law, but it said the effort was valuable to federal contractors working to complete a 3 year, $7.9M USD survey on behalf of the The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) aimed a collecting medical data for use in combatting drunk driving.

But some of the motorists who submitted samples are outraged saying that the program infringed on their Constitutional rights and that the FWPD's "please" did not make it clear that the seizure of medical samples was "voluntary".

Kim Cope -- one of those sampled -- claims to a local NBC affiliate that the police acted like she would not be allowed to continue until she allowed the contractors to seize the samples. She comments:

It just doesn't seem right that you can be forced off the road when you're not doing anything wrong. I gestured to the guy in front that I just wanted to go straight, but [the officer] wouldn't let me and forced me into a parking spot.

They were asking for cheek swabs. They would give $10 for that. Also, if you let them take your blood, they would pay you $50 for that. I finally did the Breathalyzer test just because I thought that would be the easiest way to leave.

She received no money and only consented to participate because she said she felt trapped. But it might have not mattered anyways, as you will soon discover."

- full article at link
 

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,044
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City
More Libtard male bovine excrement!!!

Driving is a PRIVILEGE! When one applies for a driver's license, one accepts that they are subject to certain laws. The state not only has a right to ensure the driver is not impaired but is responsible for removing impaired drivers from the road TO PROTECT OTHERS.

The 4th Amendment has no authority in these matters.
 
OP
D

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
Uh ya. That's why officers have to get permission to search a driver's vehicle without a search warrant, because the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.

Sit down and shut that silly little hole below your nose.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
55,207
Reaction score
12,958
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Although traffic sobriety checkpoints are Constitutional (See Michigan v. Sitz (1990)), law enforcement must still have reasonable grounds to suspect a driver is under the influence before conducting a field sobriety test. In most cases this involves questioning the driver and looking for telltale signs of intoxication. But the primary goal is that of a deterrent.

If one volunteers to take a sobriety test, then his 4th Amendment rights have not been violated. Of course many will argue that there is a fear and intimidation factor involved that might be construed as making a driver feel compelled to comply with a sobriety test, resulting in a search and seizure violation.

As for the ‘passive sensors,’ that’s an aspect of technology and 4th Amendment jurisprudence yet to be explored in the context of a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether such an expectation exists when one is subject to a sobriety checkpoint stop.
 

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,044
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City
Uh ya. That's why officers have to get permission to search a driver's vehicle without a search warrant, because the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.

Sit down and shut that silly little hole below your nose.
Another stupid example!

A police officer may search a vehicle if they have PROBABLY CAUSE to do so and it will be upheld by any judge who isn't a libturd like you.
 
OP
D

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
Although traffic sobriety checkpoints are Constitutional (See Michigan v. Sitz (1990)), law enforcement must still have reasonable grounds to suspect a driver is under the influence before conducting a field sobriety test. In most cases this involves questioning the driver and looking for telltale signs of intoxication. But the primary goal is that of a deterrent.

If one volunteers to take a sobriety test, then his 4th Amendment rights have not been violated. Of course many will argue that there is a fear and intimidation factor involved that might be construed as making a driver feel compelled to comply with a sobriety test, resulting in a search and seizure violation.

As for the ‘passive sensors,’ that’s an aspect of technology and 4th Amendment jurisprudence yet to be explored in the context of a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether such an expectation exists when one is subject to a sobriety checkpoint stop.
They weren't pulling people over because they thought they had reasonable grounds though that's the whole point. As the article said they knew full-well they were randomly pulling people over who weren't suspected of any criminal actions. Then they were intimidating them and making them think they had no right to refuse the sought samples. Hence violating the 4th Amendment. It was like 'random screening' at an airport. But in addition to randomly picking people out of the checkpoint stop, they then sought samples. That's a violation of the 4th Amendment pure and simple.

As to you longknife, you can't even spell so you'll have to find equally stupid people to argue with you.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
50,406
Reaction score
14,722
Points
2,220
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Uh ya. That's why officers have to get permission to search a driver's vehicle without a search warrant, because the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.

Sit down and shut that silly little hole below your nose.
Another stupid example!

A police officer may search a vehicle if they have PROBABLY CAUSE to do so and it will be upheld by any judge who isn't a libturd like you.
Probably cause?

Is your argument in favor of pulling innocent people off the street and unconstitutionally being forced to give DNA samples your way of convincing people to vote Republican?
 
OP
D

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
"Is your argument in favor of pulling innocent people off the street and unconstitutionally being forced to give DNA samples your way of convincing people to vote Republican?"

Someone, make that into a t-shirt. :) Have a little daytime checkpoint with sandbags and barbwire, line of cars, and officers in Naziesque uniforms 10 feet tall saying like, "May we please get samples of your DNA?" while other officers point guns at motorists. :)
 
OP
D

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
Uh-oh cusservatives, one of your own is writing about it happening in PA now. Hypocrite much or pretend you didn't see it? :)
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top