Tennessee to roll out “No Refusal” blood-draw DUI checkpoints for Labor Day

[radcen]

Tennessee to roll out “No Refusal” blood-draw DUI checkpoints for Labor Day

Tennessee to roll out "No Refusal" blood-draw DUI checkpoints for Labor Day | Police State USA

 

[Paschendale]

Wow. That's not even a little bit constitutional.

 

[Carjosse]

This is not a clear violation to freedom and privacy or anything.

 

[GottaGo]

Glad I didn't encounter one of those today.

They would have had a wee bit of a publicity problem with me.

 

[jamesrage]

The dui check points alone violate the 4th amendment,this basically wipes their ass with the 4th amendment and lights it on fire.

 

[Fisher]

Wow. That's not even a little bit constitutional.

Well it is also not exactly how it works.

"The “No Refusal” legislation allows law enforcement officials to seek search warrants for blood samples in cases involving suspected impaired drivers." (https://news.tn.gov/node/11255)

They also have published a list for the dates and locations of the checkpoint and whether they will be focused on sobriety, valid licenses or seatbelts at those checkpoints (https://news.tn.gov/sites/default/files/082713 - Labor Day, No Refusal checkpoints.pdf)

 

[Paschendale]

Well it is also not exactly how it works.

"The “No Refusal” legislation allows law enforcement officials to seek search warrants for blood samples in cases involving suspected impaired drivers." (https://news.tn.gov/node/11255)

They also have published a list for the dates and locations of the checkpoint and whether they will be focused on sobriety, valid licenses or seatbelts at those checkpoints (https://news.tn.gov/sites/default/files/082713 - Labor Day, No Refusal checkpoints.pdf)

Warrants still need probable cause. And mere presence at a location certainly doesn't produce probable cause. But even if the checkpoint can be legal, forcibly taking someone's blood goes way beyond what they're empowered to do.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Well it is also not exactly how it works.

"The “No Refusal” legislation allows law enforcement officials to seek search warrants for blood samples in cases involving suspected impaired drivers." (https://news.tn.gov/node/11255)

They also have published a list for the dates and locations of the checkpoint and whether they will be focused on sobriety, valid licenses or seatbelts at those checkpoints (https://news.tn.gov/sites/default/files/082713 - Labor Day, No Refusal checkpoints.pdf)

How long does it take to get a warrant? I can't imagine motorists lined up waiting for a judge to issue one.

 

[Lutherf]

Tennessee to roll out “No Refusal” blood-draw DUI checkpoints for Labor Day

Tennessee to roll out "No Refusal" blood-draw DUI checkpoints for Labor Day | Police State USA

The headline of the article is more than a little misleading. There will be checkpoints (like in many other states) but they won't be drawing blood from everybody.

Each car is stopped and the driver is questioned. If the cop gets the idea that the driver is impaired then they'll conduct standard sobriety tests including a blood test if it's deemed necessary because the driver screwed up the other tests.

 

[radcen]

How long does it take to get a warrant? I can't imagine motorists lined up waiting for a judge to issue one.

From the article:
"...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."

 

[TiredOfLife]

From the article:
"...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.

Got to love that Freedom around here. Make sure they keep the DNA profile, and I bet that they do, even if you pass.

 

[Fisher]

Warrants still need probable cause. And mere presence at a location certainly doesn't produce probable cause. But even if the checkpoint can be legal, forcibly taking someone's blood goes way beyond what they're empowered to do.

And they call in and get the warrant when they have probable cause and the person refuses and are set up to do just that ergo they will have probable cause and a warrant issued lawfully, any other innuendo you want to come up with? That you don't like it, does not make it unconstitutional--it is just streamlined constitutional compliance.

 

[Paschendale]

And they call in and get the warrant when they have probable cause and the person refuses and are set up to do just that ergo they will have probable cause and a warrant issued lawfully, any other innuendo you want to come up with? That you don't like it, does not make it unconstitutional--it is just streamlined constitutional compliance.

Refusing to consent to a search is hardly enough for probable cause. Being at a spot they've decided to check people isn't enough for probable cause.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Refusing to consent to a search is hardly enough for probable cause. Being at a spot they've decided to check people isn't enough for probable cause.

"Your papers please?". I'm sure they will ask nicely while they stick a needle in your arm.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Well it is also not exactly how it works.

"The “No Refusal” legislation allows law enforcement officials to seek search warrants for blood samples in cases involving suspected impaired drivers." (https://news.tn.gov/node/11255)

They also have published a list for the dates and locations of the checkpoint and whether they will be focused on sobriety, valid licenses or seatbelts at those checkpoints (https://news.tn.gov/sites/default/files/082713 - Labor Day, No Refusal checkpoints.pdf)

That doesn't make it right. They still violate the 4th amendment by forcing people to submit to questioning when there is no evidence of a law having been broken.

 

[Fisher]

That doesn't make it right. They still violate the 4th amendment by forcing people to submit to questioning when there is no evidence of a law having been broken.

They do not have to force you to say anything. If they have probable cause you are driving while intoxicated, they call for the warrant, the warrant is issued, and you are blood tested with or without your resistance. The 4th Amendment is satisfied--they have the warrant. If you are drunk, good luck convincing a Court that the warrant violated your rights. If you are not drunk, sue them and still lose.

 

[ksu_aviator]

They do not have to force you to say anything. If they have probable cause you are driving while intoxicated, they call for the warrant, the warrant is issued, and you are blood tested with or without your resistance. The 4th Amendment is satisfied--they have the warrant. If you are drunk, good luck convincing a Court that the warrant violated your rights. If you are not drunk, sue them and still lose.

But why do they have probable cause? Because they observed you or because they stopped you without cause? In this cause it is because they stopped you without cause. That's a violation of the 4th amendment.

 

[Goshin]

This sort of horse **** really pisses me off. I don't mean "makes me a little angry"... I mean it lights a long, hot burning fuse down deep inside that is going to burn for a long, long time.

 

[TiredOfLife]

This sort of horse **** really pisses me off. I don't mean "makes me a little angry"... I mean it lights a long, hot burning fuse down deep inside that is going to burn for a long, long time.

Follow my lead, drink at home.

 

[TiredOfLife]

But why do they have probable cause? Because they observed you or because they stopped you without cause? In this cause it is because they stopped you without cause. That's a violation of the 4th amendment.

Stop and Whisk, I mean Mist, I mean Frisk, I mean test your blood. Just remember, your rights come from God eh, or not.

 

[Fisher]

But why do they have probable cause? Because they observed you or because they stopped you without cause? In this cause it is because they stopped you without cause. That's a violation of the 4th amendment.

You are on a public highway. The Supreme Court has already upheld sobriety checkpoints as being constitutional 6-3. People are just pissed that the state of Tennessee has found a way to blow a hole in the "How to beat your DUI" books by greatly reducing the time between apprehension and blood-testing, precluding all that alcohol absorption nonsense. The State of Tennessee further publishes a list of exactly where these things will be set up, so if you are going to be driving after a few Tom Collins on a holiday in that state, perhaps you should ask Tom Tom for a better route to your destination.

 

[ksu_aviator]

You are on a public highway. The Supreme Court has already upheld sobriety checkpoints as being constitutional 6-3. People are just pissed that the state of Tennessee has found a way to blow a hole in the "How to beat your DUI" books by greatly reducing the time between apprehension and blood-testing, precluding all that alcohol absorption nonsense. The State of Tennessee further publishes a list of exactly where these things will be set up, so if you are going to be driving after a few Tom Collins on a holiday in that state, perhaps you should ask Tom Tom for a better route to your destination.

There were still 3 dissenters. As long as a SCOTUS decisions is not unanimous it is impeachable. Let's put up a reminder of what the fourth says:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No where in that amendment is a distinction between being secure in your presons at home or in public.

 

[Fisher]

There were still 3 dissenters. As long as a SCOTUS decisions is not unanimous it is impeachable. Let's put up a reminder of what the fourth says:



No where in that amendment is a distinction between being secure in your presons at home or in public.

Even unanimous decisions can be overturned, but that does not mean they will be. They will have warrants as required by the 4th amendment. Here is a clue--don't drive drunk and you won't have to worry about it.

 

[Thrilla]

there's like 30+ states that do these no refusal weekend ( it started in Texas and has spread all over to blue and red states alike...with more to come.)

i find them to be bull**** and a violation of rights.... but there haven't been any court cases that agree with that position (not that I'm surprised, courts are merely rubber stamps for legislatures anymore)

 

[gaylord]

I think Americans totally deserve the government that they have. They demanded "safety" and this is what they get.