Another state using “No Refusal” blood-draw DUI checkpoints
Tennessee - Labor Day: another holiday, another excuse to push the limits of the police power over citizens. All across the state, Tennessee police will be performing another round of highly-publicized “no refusal” blood-draw DUI checkpoints this weekend. With police armed with a 2012 law that allows them to forcibly extract blood from drivers, its a bad time to be a citizen who does not consent to searches.
Forcible blood draws began in Tennessee in 2009, being used only for cases of vehicular assault. In all other circumstances, the blood draws were not forcible. They could be declined, with the understanding the DUI suspect’s driver’s license would be suspended. Tennessee calls it the Implied Consent Statute.
That changed January 1, 2012, with the enactment of a new law that took away that choice for suspects to decline with a license suspension. Ever since the law took effect, police can obtain rubber-stamped warrants to forcibly extract blood from any driver they decide is a DUI suspect.
Additionally, the new law now mandates blood be drawn from citizens in a variety of circumstances. No longer limited to vehicular assault cases, police are not required to take the blood of any DUI suspect who has ever had a DUI conviction in their life, according to WBIR. The other requirement is that blood be drawn from any suspect who has a person under the age of 16 in the car. The rest of the blood-draw cases are done upon seeking a readily available warrant.
Defense attorney Gregory P. Isaacs has stated he has a problem with this new level of Holiday testing, “Any time government is allowed to commit a seizure of your body and withdraw evidence prior to being arrested for a crime opens the door for a lot of issues. This law really opens Pandora’s box on virtually every DUI stop and weakens all of our fundamental freedoms.”
In light of these new powers, the latest fad in Tennessee law enforcement is setting up “no refusal” checkpoints, having a judge or a judicial commissioner on call to churn out blood warrants on demand. Rather than spread out across a town, looking for probable cause to stop vehicles, police set stop everyone, lacking any tangible reason to initiate each stop.
These so-called “no refusal” checkpoints involve police blocking a public road, sometimes forcing drivers into a parking lot, where they will be forced to prove their innocence to police officers. The lucky ones will be allowed to continue their journey down the public street after brief questioning and harassment. Drivers who draw police interest — say, for being less than thrilled about being subjected to police checkpoints on American streets — may be put through field sobriety tests and may ultimately told that they will either voluntarily submit to a search, or they will be forcibly be subjected to a search. I am referring to breath and blood searches.
This Labor Day weekend, at least a dozen counties in Tennessee will be launching the “no refusal” checkpoints, according to NewsChannel5.com. The state has been rolling out the checkpoints en masse on holiday weekends, getting the public acclimated to the idea of mandatory blood draws in the land of the free.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/tennessee-roll-refusal-blood-draw-dui-checkpoints-labor-day/
http://www.inquisitr.com/931410/labor-day-tennessee-dui-checkpoints-to-require-blood-tests/
Police DUI checkpoint screened 1,000 cars, made one DUI arrest:
California - Rohnert Park Police set up their latest DUI checkpoint over Labor Day weekend, and its results raised an interesting question: Is the checkpoint a bust if it yields just one arrest, or has it successfully deterred residents from drinking and driving?
Police Sgt. Aaron Johnson said 1,050 cars passed through the checkpoint on eastbound East Cotati Ave. at Santero Way between 7 p.m. and 2 a.m. Friday night. Of those, 956 drivers were screened for signs of DUI and to have their licenses checked. Of those, 20 drivers were sent to a nearby parking area for further evaluation, Johnson said.
http://rohnertpark-cotati.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/rohnert-park-police-dui-checkpoint-screens-1000-cars-makes-one-dui-arrest
Paramedics can draw blood draw on scene from DWI suspects:
Texas - The new law, passed this spring by the Texas Legislature, says that if officers think alcohol played a factor in a crash, paramedics at the scene can draw your blood.
The law comes just in time for Labor Day weekend, a holiday when many folks are going to drink -- and some may try to drive.
"In the last legislative session, the legislation addressed an issue of whether EMTs could take blood in relation to intoxication behind the wheel, be it an accident issue or an arrest," said Susan Reed, Bexar County district attorney.
The change came from a state court opinion from years ago.
"Now in Bexar County, what that means is we have already established a system of taking blood and doing blood warrants and DWIs."
Now, add paramedics to that.
"We could develop a system of mobile units, using EMTs to do that," she said. "But remember, it is still the circumstance of having the sanitary place."
But at the end of the day, the DA says it's a good move -- especially for Labor Day weekend.
"It actually gives us more options and more ability to do warrants and do blood draws in relation to DWI."
The new law will allow 6,000 paramedics across the state to draw blood if the police at the scene ask for it.
http://www.khou.com/home/222003291.html
Police in Kentucky can't order a motorist out of a car and search him because he refused to answer questions:
Kentucky's highest court admonished police officers that they cannot force motorists out of a vehicle and search them merely because they refuse to answer questions. The court took up the traffic stop of Thomas Frazier, 48, who was waiting in a fast food drive-through lane on June 7, 2008 when a friend of his son's, a passenger, tossed some trash out of the window. Boone County Sheriff Deputies Mike Moore and Nate Boggs were behind in an unmarked patrol car and decided to follow Frazier's silver Ford.
The deputies claimed Frazier failed to signal a left-hand turn in a left-turn-only lane. They conducted a traffic stop in which Frazier produced his license and insurance when asked, but he balked when Deputy Moore asked him to identify his passengers and explain where they were going.
"Does it matter?" Frazier replied.
Enraged, Deputy Moore ordered Frazier to exit the vehicle, and Deputy Boggs conducted a pat-down search over Frazier's objection. Boggs felt something "suspicious" in the driver's front jeans pocket. Frazier refused to identify the object, so Deputy Boggs reached in and grabbed a bag of marijuana, justifying it later by saying Frazier was "nervous" and "belligerent." Frazier was sentenced to 150 days in jail and a $500 fine for marijuana possession and criminal littering.
The Court of Appeals reversed Frazier's littering conviction, but upheld the others. The Supreme Court majority found the lower courts were wrong and that there was no reason to suspect Frazier was armed.
"Here, Frazier's nervous and marginally insolent demeanor was the sole basis for the frisk," the court majority ruled. "While Frazier's refusal to consent to a search may have aggravated the officers, that refusal cannot be considered as a basis for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, as such a determination would violate the Fourth Amendment."
The Supreme Court majority ordered all of the evidence against Frazier suppressed. In a partial dissent, three justices argued police should be able to pull anyone out of an automobile who refuses to display sufficient subservience to a law enforcement officer.
"The traffic stops of perfect strangers, especially those of cars loaded with people, always carry unknown dangers," Justice Bill Cunningham wrote. "Such insolent behavior can -- as in this case -- signal a belligerence that can easily escalate to violence. The officer was standing by the door of a car full of people. The driver, at least, was hateful. Unknowing what weapon might lurk in the midst of them, I would not question the wisdom or legitimacy of having the driver step out of the car and patting him down." (WTF? Judges think it's ok to drag an innocent person from their vehicle because a police officer claims he was belligerent! Whats next "indefinite dentition" ohh. right we already have that it's called the NDAA Act)
http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/ky-litterbug.pdf
Facebook app. connects college students with sober drivers:
A Facebook app could help college-age students find sober drivers ahead of time and prevent drunk driving accidents.
The Person Appointed to Stay Sober (P.A.S.S.) app launched on three university campuses this week and is part of a year-long pilot program through the Texas Department of Transportation, which created the app. The department chose the University of North Texas, Midwestern State University and the University of Texas at Brownsville to pilot the app because it wanted a good sample of different sized institutions in various parts of the state.
The app integrates with Facebook events and allows students to search for friends who agree to be sober drivers for an event. They can also offer to be sober drivers for other people and pledge payment amounts if they choose. The department emphasizes the term "sober driver" because "designated driver" has come to mean the person who is the least drunk.
The university already requires students to take an online course called AlcoholEDU if they are freshmen, under the age of 21, transfer students or involved in Greek life. That Greek life requirement is new this year after the university saw a spike in self-reported drinking at fraternity and sorority houses in the 2012 AlcoholEDU survey. (Don't think for one second this won't be used against a student in court. Their mandatory involvement will have life-long repercussions)
http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Facebook-App-Connects-College-Students-and-Sober-Drivers.html