“No Refusal” Blood Draw Checkpoint Planned for Ohio

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Well, the OWO is in control largely. Sure, the aristocracy has been watered down by new money, but most of those families are still well represented. I don't see why they would benefit from a NWO. A global government might save them some money, but it would probably ruin a lot of arbitrage opportunities as corporations would be held to global standards of working conditions, wages, etc. The only way I can see the OWO creating a NWO is to abolish democratic government entirely, leading to a world run directly by corporations where money is literally power so that way poor people get no vote at all, and corporations get billions of votes.

This is already the system we have, technically, it is just very inefficient because of all of these redundant layers of government middlemen who must be paid off to delude the public into thinking they have a responsive representative government. Maybe at some point they will do this if they can distract us enough to where we won't care if we have a government or not.

I am a global citizen. I am deeply concerned about issues in places like North Korea, Brunei, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, etc where our government and the global leadership is very unlikely to intervene. I don't think it is fair for a homosexual to be stoned to death anywhere on this planet. I don't think it is fair for sex slaves to exist anywhere on this planet. We need a global system of universal justice to protect people no matter where they go. I think for me, that is why the vision of a New Alexandria is romantic and idealistic, but you have to watch yourself too.

Most liberals are far too confident in the competency of democratic power and bureaucratic effectiveness. They do not understand that bureaucracies become almost like corporations after you've brought them into existence, except they have a single customer and that customer is never right. We need a way to govern that is anti-bureaucratic and decentralized and then we might have a hope of avoiding tyranny.

I think the features of a republic like the rule of law and individual rights are very good selling points and if we can carry those forward into a more universal system, I think it would be for the benefit of all of humankind. The NWO is only dangerous if it does not represent the interests of the people. If it is a populist movement to restore sanity to the societies of this world, it could be the best thing that ever happened to humankind.

Imagine a world without war, without industrial waste leading us to invest in the instruments of war, what might we be able to achieve as a people if we were solely invested in creating things that improve upon our quality of life, that increase our free time, that decrease the cost of goods, services and energy, and that increase our life expectancy. What if 90% of us got to spend most of our time in jobs that challenged us, taking long weekends for spiritual, philosophical and scientific retreats, having lecturers stand on the street corners giving impromptu lessons on entry level college course materials. We could live in a world of perpetual renaissance.

That is our potential, and this is why I feel that we are living within the depths of our own shadow. It is time we birthed a little illumination into this world. ;p

So they've been doing this for several years where live, mostly on holiday weekends, when DUI's tend to spike. In illinois, you can refuse a breathalyzer, but you will automatically have your driving privileges suspended for IIRC, 6 months. That's way less time than you're going to lose your license for a DUI, so drunk drivers will often refuse the breathalyzer, and take the "easy" way out. When the authorities conduct these no refusal periods, they freely announce it beforehand, it's not a surprise to anyone. If you refuse to blow, and they have probable cause that you are intoxicated, you are detained and taken to a hospital for a blood test. If you fail, you are arrested. Typically, they detain one or two people during the weekend, and as far as I know, the suspects always end up getting arrested. I'm guessing that Ohio's reasoning in allowing this is similar to why it's done here.

a reply to: eisegesis

I live in Ohio and if they try that with me they might get more then they expect!
I have a HUGE fear of needles..... I'm also hypersensitive I have to have the smallest needle they have. I just had blood taken the other day and the nurse used a butterfly needle and I still about jumped out of the chair. She couldn't believe it. She said your really sensitive!

A few years back I was having chest pains at work and an ambulance came and got me they hooked up the monitors and it's mandatory I think for them to start an iv..... When they said they were going to put an iv hook up on me. I instantly went into panic mode. The guy was just about to stick the needle in me when the other guy reading my signs said STOP. If you stick her with that needle she'll have a heart attack right now! I told them I was afraid! I went to the hospital and they never hooked up that iv.....

So what's the police going to do when they get a person like me? I would counter sue so fast they wouldn't know what hit them that is if I survive the heart attack they create by sticking me with the needle. If someone dies because of it I think that would most likely put an end to it.

They're are traitors among us. The call themselves "justices". But they are not defending the constitution.

If they can't get evidence for a crime, they torture you for it.

The constitution guarantee's me the right to not incriminate myself, if my blood incriminates me how is that not MYSELF incriminating me? How is my blood, not me?

originally posted by: stormcell
There isn't even any need to take blood samples. There are optical sensors that can read alcohol levels through the skin

www.trutouchtechnologies.com...

If cops are insisting on sticking needles into people, it isn't for law enforcement reasons.

i think you 100% on the money there...

wow just wow...

As the police are bent on blood draws perhaps they should start with themselves first.Pretty sure many would be found to be abusing steroids.

You do realize that you don't have to go through the check point. If you didn't know they are having a check point and you come across one (at least in the state of Ohio), at the first set of signs that say "check point ahead", turn around and go another way. If you continue past the signs and proceed ahead, then you are in their check point.

From the Ohio State Highway Patrol website-
The physical makeup of the checkpoint reflects the court's and our concern for the safety of everyone using the highways. Large, highly reflectorized signs are set on the side of the road well in advance of the actual checkpoint. Fully marked police vehicles are situated at these signs on the approach to the checkpoint. It is at this point where motorists who choose not to enter the checkpoint may turn around. A second "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead Sign" is placed at the beginning of the lane of traffic cones, fussees, and other devices that mark the boundaries of the checkpoint itself. The area is illuminated by portable lights, flares and the emergency lights of several police cars which are situated on the berm to provide additional protection for the zone.
statepatrol.ohio.gov...

Know the rules.

a reply to: DigiMike

I'll never understand why, when checkpoints like these are set up, the people from the communities don't band together and flood it. This crap will continue, and get worse, until the people step out from behind their televisions and internet, and do something about it.

Complacency is the enemy.

Well it's better for them because guess what..... Smoke some wacky tobacky 2 weeks ago, DUI any non prescribed drugs that are in your system longer than 48 hrs, DUI... More convictions = More money!

In my opinion, we need more of these checkpoints. Many more. Why? The only way to revolution is by forcing this type of behavior on every citizen. The prevalent attitude is so long as it is happening to 'them', then I have no need to inconvenience myself. If anyone here still believes that America is still the land of the free, just re-read the OP. While this is but a single intrusion, how many more added to it equals outright oppression?

a reply to: eisegesis

I wonder how many people will act drunk just to get some blood removed so they can sue the state for millions of dollars.


Are these state officials really this stupid?

a reply to: eisegesis
I sympathize completely with MADD, all groups like it, and anyone who has lost a loved one from a drunk driver. I am guilty in the past of DUI, myself, and have paid the price. And I was wrong.

However, there has to be another way. There just has to be. Surely.

The potential for abuse, here, imho, is incredible. And just seeing still shots of people strapped to gurneys to have their blood drawn forcibly is horrifying…..

What the heck?

They need blood to tell if you are driving impaired? Walking a straight line and saying the alphabet and whatever else isn't good enough?

Be a cold day in hell before I let some damn vampire take blood from me without a fight.

I found this on a police forum. This was an officer, I believe from California, who posted this after it was sent to him by his Chief. It outlines the situation quite well and is worth the read. I find it strange how different states can decide whether it's unconstitutional or not when the constitution knows no borders. Like some posters have said, they are taking a big risk. Kicking a beehive creates a lot of angry hornets. Eventually one is going to sting you.

I hope I don't get flamed for posting the entire thing but I felt it was important to share. Some don't like clicking links before forming an opinion.

TAKING BLOOD FROM A DUI SUSPECT WILL USUALLY REQUIRE CONSENT OR A WARRANT

On April 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8 – 1, in the case of Missouri v. McNeely, that “the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream [does not present] a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases.” The Court concluded that “we hold, consistent with general Fourth Amendment principles, that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.”

The Fourth Amendment typically requires probable cause and a warrant to conduct a search that intrudes into an area where the suspect has a significant privacy interest. Intrusions into the human body, like intrusions into the home, are highly protected by the Fourth Amendment. Warrantless intrusions into the human body will only be permissible when “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Obviously, if the person consents to the search, a warrant is not needed.

The Court stated that “(o)ur cases have held that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception. That principle applies to the type of search at issue in this case, which involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely’s skin and into his veins to obtain a sample of his blood for use as evidence in a criminal investigation. Such an invasion of bodily integrity implicates an individual’s most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.”

Facts

A Missouri police officer stopped Tyler McNeely’s truck at 2:08 a.m. after observing it speeding and crossing the centerline. McNeely had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and smelled of alcohol, and was arrested after refusing the officer’s request to take a breathalyzer test. The officer then took McNeely to a hospital where a lab technician drew McNeely’s blood at the officer’s direction and without McNeely’s consent. McNeely’s blood alcohol content was above the legal limit, and he was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). He moved to suppress the blood test, arguing that the forced blood test was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

The Missouri trial court agreed, concluding that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because, apart from the fact that McNeely’s blood alcohol was dissipating, no circumstances suggested that the officer faced an emergency. The lower court also found that the “exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because, apart from the fact that “[a]s in all cases involving intoxication,[McNeely’s] blood alcohol was being metabolized by his liver,” there were no circumstances suggesting the officer faced an emergency in which he could not practicably obtain a warrant.”

The State Supreme Court ultimately affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence.”

The State Court found that “this was ‘unquestionably a routine DWI case’ in which no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood-alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, [and that] the nonconsensual warrantless blood draw violated McNeely’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person.”

Missouri petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the case for review and asked the Court to rule that search warrants are never required for blood alcohol tests. However, the Court declined to create a bright-line rule that categorically includes nonconsensual blood testing for suspected DUIs within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Instead, the Supreme Court applied the “totality of the circumstances” test which considers the rapidly disappearing blood alcohol content only as a single factor in establishing whether the exigent circumstances exception applies.

edit on 24-10-2014 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)

Schmerber v. California

As noted above, the Missouri Court relied on the case of Schmerber v. California where the United States Supreme Court upheld a warrantless, nonconsensual, blood test in a DUI case under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. There, the Court found that the natural elimination of alcohol from the bloodstream steadily destroys criminal evidence, and can create exigent circumstances that justify dispensing with the warrant requirement. Yet the Court’s decision in Schmerber was premised on the totality of the factual circumstances, not merely on the singular fact that the suspect’s incriminating blood alcohol content was naturally dissipating.

The facts in Schmerber included an accident in connection with the DUI arrest, a factor that increased the exigency confronting the officers because the accident investigation necessarily increased the amount of time it would take to draw the suspect’s blood. This increased the exigency confronting the officers in Schmerber and, under these specific circumstances, there was a compelling need for the search and no time to secure a warrant.

Essentially, the naturally dissipating blood alcohol content, combined with the additional time-consuming task of investigating the traffic accident, created a unique factual scenario that made it reasonable for the officers to dispense with the additional time-consuming task of obtaining a search warrant. It is important to note that Schmerber did not establish any legal authority to routinely draw blood from a DUI suspect – it required articulating a factual basis that create.
The Supreme Court’s Rationale

The Court refused to fashion warrantless DUI blood tests into a bright-line category of permissible searches under the exigent circumstances doctrine. The Court held that all DUI investigations are not “now or never” situations where an exigency truly exists and there is no time to obtain a warrant. It states that “the importance of requiring authorization by a ‘neutral and detached magistrate’ before allowing a law enforcement officer to “invade another’s body in search of evidence of guilt is indisputable and great.”

Furthermore, “the warrant requirement is subject to exceptions. One well-recognized exception, and the one at issue in this case, ‘applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’” After setting forth various examples of exceptions to the warrant requirement, the Court states that, “we have also recognized that in some circumstances law enforcement officers may conduct a search without a warrant to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.”

“To determine whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant, this Court looks to the totality of circumstances.” Absent clearly established justification, however, it is necessary to apply “the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry,” which requires “that we evaluate each case of alleged exigency based on its own facts and circumstances.”

In discussing its decision in Schmerber, the Court pointed out that “where time had to be taken to bring the accused to a hospital and to investigate the scene of the accident, there was no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant. Given these special facts, we found that it was appropriate for the police to act without a warrant.”

“Thus, our analysis in Schmerber fits comfortably within our case law applying the exigent circumstances exception. In finding the warrantless blood test reasonable in Schmerber, we considered all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case and carefully based our holding on those specific facts.”

In the instant case, however, “the State claims that so long as the officer has probable cause and the blood test is conducted in a reasonable manner, it is categorically reasonable for law enforcement to obtain the blood sample without a warrant.” The Court acknowledges that the alcohol dissipates naturally and gradually over time in a relatively consistent manner but “it does not follow that we should depart from careful case-by-case assessment of exigency and adopt the categorical rule proposed by the State. . . .” As such, “(i)n those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so.”

“We do not doubt that some circumstances will make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream will support an exigency justifying a properly conducted warrantless blood test. That, however, is a reason to decide each case on its facts, as we did in Schmerber, not to accept the ‘considerable overgeneralization’ that a per se rule would reflect.”
Finally, the Court held that advances in the warrant application process, particularly in DUI investigations where the evidence to establish probable cause is simple, have significantly expedited the process. “Well over a majority of States allow police officers or prosecutors to apply for search warrants remotely through various means, including telephonic or radio communication, electronic communication such as e-mail, and video conferencing.

HOW THIS AFFECTS YOUR AGENCY

It should be noted that the Supreme Court did not hold that a warrantless, nonconsensual blood test, during a DUI investigation can never create exigent circumstances, Rather, the Court simply refused to create a categorical rule that any time police suspect a DUI has occurred, it may draw the suspect’s blood without a warrant. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires there to be more circumstances beyond the natural dissipation of blood alcohol content in order to create a true exigency.

Law enforcement officers conducting DUI investigations should note that they can still draw blood if the suspect consents, or if there are other factual circumstances that make it reasonable for the officer to dispense with the time-consuming task of obtaining a warrant. It will, as always, the officer’s burden to justify that exigent circumstances were present.

However, based on this decision, investigating officers should not take a nonconsensual blood test of a suspect during a routine DUI investigation where the only factor giving rise to the exigency is the natural dissipation of blood alcohol content in the suspect’s blood. The Court’s ultimate conclusion is that, “while the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support a finding of exigency in a specific case, as it did in Schmerber, it does not do so categorically. Whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.”

If your agency has believed the use of a compelled blood draw in all DUI cases was acceptable and lawful, that is no longer the case. Nor, in fact, was it ever the case. As the Court notes, the decision in Schmerber was predicated upon exigent circumstances and was based on the totality of the factual circumstances, not merely on the singular fact that the suspect’s incriminating blood alcohol content was naturally dissipating.

There is, currently, a problem for California law enforcement, namely, Cal Pen Code 1524(a), which provides a list of grounds for obtaining a search warrant. Although it includes securing a search warrant when a felony is involved, misdemeanor DUI’s are not included on this list. It is our understanding that the California District Attorneys’ Association is currently working on a Legislative fix for this, likely amending Section 1524 to permit a search warrant for misdemeanor DUIs.

As of now, however, in most DUI cases, absent the person’s consent, a warrant is needed to forcibly draw blood unless exigent circumstances justify the warrantless search. As in all matters involving the law, we urge that you confer with your agency’s legal counsel for advice and guidance before attempting to comply with this type of change to what has been accepted practice.

a reply to: stormcell

Why the needle? Taking a persons blood is invasive and must be sent off to a lab for testing.

There are instant saliva and urine tests available for both drugs and alcohol. If either screens positive, it should be sent off to a lab for confirmation.

originally posted by: eisegesis
According to the officers carrying out this extreme violation of our fourth amendment, every car will be checked to make sure drivers are not impaired.

You don't have the right to drive a car. It's a privilege.

If you're behind the wheel of a car, I sure don't want you impaired. I got hit by a drunk driver back in 2006.

It's about time they got harsh about this.

This is ridiculous. They should not be allowed to put you in a DNA database for life (and that's what they want the blood for) that can be referenced at any time to see if you committed a crime just because you're driving.

That's a lifetime punishment for not even being convicted of breaking the law.

a reply to: eisegesis
WTF

The crazy is slowly getting more, well more crazy. I suppose you must get people used to things first, its like there beaming crazy straight into peoples heads from space now. This whole thing reminds me of a cooking show I was once watching, they were cooking lobsters.