[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Roadside drug testing pilot program starts Wednesday
Source: Times Herald
URL Source: http://www.thetimesherald.com/story ... am-starts-wednesday/825577001/
Published: Nov 2, 2017
Author: Liz Shepard
Post Date: 2017-11-06 14:24:03 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 1187
Comments: 29

Drivers in St. Clair County will be among the first in the state who could be required to submit to roadside drug testing.

The pilot program for the roadside drug testing begins Wednesday in five counties: Berrien, Delta, Kent, St. Clair and Washtenaw.

The counties were chosen based on criteria including the number of impaired crashes reported and the number of Drug Recognition Experts in the county. DREs are law enforcement officials trained to recognize drugged drivers.

"We're really excited to be chosen as one of the five counties," said St. Clair County Prosecutor Mike Wendling.

More: Memorial honors state trooper who died in crash

The testing involves taking a swab of the driver's mouth, as well as a 12-step evaluation. Drivers who refuse to submit to a preliminary oral fluid analysis face being ticketed for a civil infraction.

DREs will be provided handheld devices that the swab will be inserted into. The devices recognize drugs including amphetamines, benzodiazepine, cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine and opioids and gives a reading within a few minutes, said Michigan State Police Special First Lt. Jim Flegel.

While the pilot is being managed by the Michigan State Police, the testing will also be utilized by county and municipal agencies.

Wendling said local officials started working on this pilot program following a double fatal crash involving a drugged driver.

Lisa Bergman had consumed a variety of prescription medications, methamphetamine and alcohol when the pickup she was driving crossed the center line of Lapeer Road and collided head-first with a pickup carrying Russell Ward and Koby Raymo on July 20, 2013. They both were killed.

More: Drugged driving: Protect others from your choices

Prosecution showed during her trial Bergman had been involved in seven other driving incidents in which it was believed she was under the influence of prescription medicines and other substances.

Wendling said it is unknown if a saliva test during one of the prior stops could have kept her off the road.

"We all know what a danger drunk driving is; drugged driving is equally as dangerous and it's just harder to detect," he said. "This will give officers a better way to detect while still protecting people's rights."

Wendling said the roadside test result will not be admissible in court, much like a preliminary breath test. He said search warrants could be sought for blood draws for admissible evidence.

The test will give officers the ability to determine why a driver is driving recklessly, and if it shows negative, could indicate someone is in need of medical help.

Wendling said he doesn't believe there are any questions about the validity or reliability of the test, which has been used by probation and parole departments for a number of years.

"It may not be admissible to a jury or a judge, but it's certainly an effective tool for an officer to know if they should be driving or not," he said.

St. Clair County Sheriff Tim Donnellon said he has a few deputies trained as DREs.

Drugged driving has had a "tremendous uptick in the opioid epidemic as well as the continual rise of the THC," he said.

In 2016, there were 2,667 drug-involved crashes in Michigan, according to MSP. That was a 20 percent increase from 2015. St. Clair County reported 53 drug-involved crashes in 2016, including one fatality, according to the MSP statistics.

Flegel said DREs in the five counties will go through training Monday and Tuesday on using the devices.

If the program is deemed successful, Flegel said the department will send a report to the Legislature and look to branching into more counties.

"Unfortunately with the opioid epidemic and medical marijuana, we've seen a huge influx in driver fatalities when operating under the influence of drugs," he said.

Flegel said he expects the pilot program to be closely watched.

"It's going to be one of the first in the country to do this," he said. "There are going to be many other states and agencies looking to us and toward our results as to how it is conducted."

Michigan law enforcement agencies will be using Abbott’s Alere DDS Mobile Forensic Test System.

“Abbott is pleased to provide the Michigan State Police with a testing instrument that can be used at the roadside. Our handheld instrument empowers officers to make informed decisions that will positively impact public safety,” Scott Taillie, vice president of toxicology at Abbott, said in a statement.


Poster Comment:

Book ‘em, Dano.
Get those pot smoking heatherns off the highways and MRSR (Make Roads Safe Again).

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

#6. To: Gatlin (#0)

Drivers in St. Clair County will be among the first in the state who could be required to submit to roadside drug testing.

This is bullshit fishing expeditions. Whoever thought of this should be put on trial for treason. They are waging a war against the constitution.

Your over zealousness sometimes clouds your judgement and makes you support things that are contrary to the constitution.

Have you ever read the fourth amendment? Tell me exactly how this doesn't violate the fourth amendment.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-07   9:17:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#6)

Have you ever read the fourth amendment?

Yes, I have read the Fourth Amendment.

Tell me exactly how this doesn't violate the fourth amendment.

I am not an interpreter of the Constitution.

Therefore I will let the United States Supreme Court tell you this doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-07   13:28:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Gatlin (#10)

So again tell me how it doesn't violate the fourth amendment.

I think you know it does and you can't win the word battle.

So you post a link to a supreme court decision to try and end the conversation with a "victory".

Come on Gatlin read the fourth and tell us how it doesn't violate it. I think you know it violates the fourth amendment. That you don't care if it violates the fourth amendment. To you, in my opinion it is more important that it goes the way you want then following the constitution to the letter. You generally support the constitution. But if there is something you feel strongly about you will go with be in favor of that instead of the constitution.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-07   14:12:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: A K A Stone (#12)

So again tell me how it doesn't violate the fourth amendment.

So again I will tell you the same thing.

It doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment because the United States Supreme Court ruled that it doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

You may think it violates the Fourth Amendment, but that is only your personal opinion which of course you can freely express.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-07   14:40:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Gatlin (#16)

So again I will tell you the same thing.

It doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment because the United States Supreme Court ruled that it doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

You may think it violates the Fourth Amendment, but that is only your personal opinion which of course you can freely express.

Fourth amendment says there has to be a search warrant signed by a judge.

It violates it.

The Supreme court said unborn babies aren't human and worthy of a trash can. They know better then you right?

Sometimes you have to have the guts to say they got it wrong.

Or in your case to say they got it wrong and I don't care because it was the right thing imo.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-07   14:45:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: A K A Stone (#18)

Sometimes you have to have the guts to say they got it wrong.

When someone does say the US Supreme Court got it wrong….they are only expressing their personal opinion which of course they are entitled to do.

And they can go to the open window and scream I’m mad as Hell and I’m not goint to take this anymore like the actor did in the 1976 American satirical film.

But then, reality must set in …

You either follow and obey the ruling….or you must suffer the consequences.

Your choice …

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-07   15:07:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)

I will leave you with this from findlaw.com:

DUI Checkpoints and the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the people have a right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches will often involve the issuance of a search warrant, but not always. Searches and seizures can occur without a warrant under certain circumstances as long as the search is reasonable.

Most of the time, a search will be reasonable if there is probable cause for law enforcement officers to believe that it is necessary. A search incident to an arrest, for example, is generally considered reasonable since there is already probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has done something wrong.

Searches and seizures that occur randomly or that are overly burdensome or intrusive, however, will generally not be considered reasonable by a court. Any evidence acquired as a result of such a search will be removed from the official record in a case.

Sufficient Probable Cause?

DUI checkpoints pose an interesting application of the Fourth Amendment’s rules. Stopping the driver of a car is considered a seizure since the person has to pull over and can’t leave again until the officer allows it. Since the law enforcement officers at a DUI checkpoint stop every single driver without any individualized suspicion, it would appear at first glance that the officers would not have sufficient probable cause to conduct the seizure of the drivers.

In certain cases where the type of seizure is minimally intrusive, however, the Supreme Court has decided that a balancing test is more appropriate for determining the reasonableness of a search than the probable cause standard. In the case concerning DUI checkpoints mentioned in the introduction to this article, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices determined that the needs of the state to prevent drunk-driving accidents outweighed the minimal intrusion on sober drivers who just happen to get caught up in the DUI dragnet. Thus, the Justices argued, DUI checkpoints did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.

http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/are-dui-checkpoints- legal-.html

Do with this whatever you wish to.

Fight it all you want to, but you are never going to win.

However, if it make you feel better to fight it….then have at it until your heart’s content.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-07   15:25:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Gatlin (#22)

Think for yourself. There is no probable cause. You just go along with what authority figures say.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-07   16:02:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)

You just go along with what authority figures say.

No, I just don’t intentionally fight the law just to be an obstinate rebellious ass.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-07   16:11:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 24.

#25. To: Leon Trotsky, Gatlin, anti-Constitution scofflaw totalitarians, 4th Amendment (#24)

fight the law

You anti-Constitution totalitarians, will lose again.

Hondo68  posted on  2017-11-07 16:20:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com