-----------------
INFOWARS E-MAIL
|
|
|
Denver Sheriff's Office Helps Private Companies Take Blood
And Saliva At Checkpoints
Drivers subjected to "voluntary"
procedure say they feel like DUI stops
|
|
|
A Sheriff's office in Denver has been blasted by drivers
after it engaged in the operation of what appeared to be
DUI checkpoints but were in fact stops being carried out
by a private non-profit research group.
The Gilpin County Sheriff's Office was hit
with complaints earlier this week from motorists who say
they were not properly informed of the nature of the stops
and felt that they were non-voluntary. One Undersheriff
even described the procedure as "like a telemarketer
that you couldn't hang up on,".
The Denver
post reported on the incident earlier this
week:
Sgt. Bob Enney said deputies assisted the Pacific Institute
for Research and Evaluation in stopping motorists at five
sites along Colorado 119 for surveys on any drug and alcohol
use. Surveyors then asked the motorists to voluntarily submit
to tests of their breath, blood and saliva. At least 200
drivers were tested, Enney said. About five motorists later
complained, he said.
The research is reportedly part of a nationwide
study partly financed by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
Some motorists told the Post that they repeatedly
asked if the questioners were law enforcement officials
and after stating that they were not interested in participating
in the study, were still not given clearance to leave.
Describing the surveyors as being dressed
in blue jumpsuits, others stated that they were "too
persistent" and even offered $100 incentives to motorists
in an attempt to get them to change their minds after they
had declined to take part in the survey. Some even said
that the surveyors then ridiculed the motorists for not
taking the money.
(Article continues below)
In recent years police have moved towards taking blood
samples as they cannot be challenged where as breath tests
can. As this
report from the Wall Street journal explains:
"In the past, police routinely asked suspected drunk
drivers to blow into devices that extrapolated their blood's
alcohol content from their breath. Now, authorities in
most states are taking blood, by force if necessary.
Laws in at least seven states allow police to take blood
without the driver's consent, without explicitly authorizing
force. In most other states, court rulings have authorized
reasonable force to obtain blood. Many such rulings cite
a little-known fact about driving laws in the U.S.: All
motorists are considered to have consented to a search of
their blood, breath or urine. Such "implied consent"
laws were introduced in New York in 1953, and today all
50 states and the District of Columbia have them."
Regular DUI checkpoints have increasingly come under scrutiny
across the country with some
judges ruling them unconstitutional and illegal.
Lawmakers have also challenged checkpoints and introduced
bills to outlaw them. Rep. Charlene Lima, of
Cranston, who sponsored a 2005 bill, said the checkpoints
violate people's civil rights, and "smack of a police
state." The American Civil Liberties Union also opposes
checkpoints.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7,
Gladio and 9/11, get
Terror Storm!
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers.
Help support the website and take advantage of low advertising
rates. Click
here for more info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution of the United States states that police
cannot stop someone and conduct an investigation unless
there are "articulable facts". Within the language
of the 4th Amendment DUI checkpoints constitute a "seizure".
Despite these facts the MADD maintains the following on
its website:
MYTH: Sobriety checkpoints constitute illegal search
and seizure and are, therefore, unconstitutional.
MYTH: People don't like the use of sobriety checkpoints
to detect and deter impaired drivers. They consider them
a form of police harassment and an invasion of their privacy.
While the blatant violation of the constitution continues
with regular checkpoints however, it cannot be argued that
it is legal for local officials to allow private companies
to stop motorists in seemingly enforced situations.
In other
instances police have been caught putting signs
up warning drivers of upcoming DUI checkpoints where in
fact there are none and then detaining and searching drivers
who make illegal u-turns or desperately fling contraband
from their vehicles.
It is now the norm to consider everybody equally likely
to be guilty of something than innocent. This is proactive
policing, not preventative or reactive policing. And the
worrying thing is that this kind of policing is more widely
indicative of a society that is NOT free.
If you encounter a checkpoint you should ask the personnel
there if they are officers of the law, whether you are being
detained or not and if they have probable cause. If the
answer to one of these questions is no then there is no
lawful right to stop you.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
|
 
|
|
