U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Forced Blood Draws & Implied Consent Laws Make a Mockery of the Fourth Amendment
Source:
The Rutherford Institute
URL Source: https://www.rutherford.org/publicat ... ockery_of_the_fourth_amendment
Published: Mar 5, 2019
Author: John Whitehead
Post Date: 2019-03-06 06:50:39 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 5346
Comments: 62
You think you’ve got rights? Think again. All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will. This is the grim reality of life in the American police state. Our so-called rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs. Consider a case before the U.S. Supreme Court (Mitchell vs. Wisconsin) in which Wisconsin police officers read an unconscious man his rights and then proceeded to forcibly and warrantlessly draw his blood while he was still unconscious in order to determine if he could be charged with a DUI. To sanction this forced blood draw, the cops and the courts have hitched their wagon to state “implied consent” laws (all of the states have them), which suggest that merely driving on a state-owned road implies that a person has consented to police sobriety tests, breathalyzers and blood draws. More than half of the states (29 states) allow police to do warrantless, forced blood draws on unconscious individuals whom they suspect of driving while intoxicated. Seven state appeals courts have declared these warrantless blood draws when carried out on unconscious suspects are unconstitutional. Courts in seven other states have found that implied consent laws run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. And yet seven other states (including Wisconsin) have ruled that implied consent laws provide police with a free pass when it comes to the Fourth Amendment and forced blood draws. With this much division among the state courts, a lot is riding on which way the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Mitchell and whether it allows state legislatures to use implied consent laws as a means of allowing police to bypass the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in relation to forced blood draws and unconscious suspects. Mind you, this is the third time in as many years that the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of warrantless blood draws. In 2016, the Court ruled 7-1 in Birchfield v. North Dakota that states may not prosecute suspected drunken drivers for refusing warrantless blood draws when they are arrested. However, the Court also tossed the cops a bone by giving them a green light to require a warrantless breath test incident to arrest. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito rightly recognized the danger of allowing the government to warrantlessly take possession of—and preserve indefinitely—one’s biological and genetic material. In 2013, a divided Supreme Court held in Missouri v. McNeely that people suspected of drunken driving can’t automatically be subjected to blood tests without a warrant and without their consent. The differences between McNeely, Birchfeld and Mitchell are nuanced, but it is in these nuances that the struggle to preserve the Fourth Amendment can best be seen. The Fourth Amendment has been on life support for a long time. Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be strangulated by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation. Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases: these are just a few ways in which Americans are being forced to accept that we have no control over our bodies, our lives and our property, especially when it comes to interactions with the government. Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are now guilty until proven innocent. Such is life in America today that individuals are being threatened with arrest and carted off to jail for the least hint of noncompliance, homes are being raided by police under the slightest pretext, property is being seized on the slightest hint of suspicious activity, and roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity. Remember what happened to Utah nurse Alex Wubbels after a police detective demanded to take blood from a badly injured, unconscious patient without a warrant? Wubbels refused to go along with the cop’s order, citing hospital policy that requires police to either have a warrant or permission from the patient in order to draw blood. The detective had neither. Irate, the detective threatened to have Wubbels arrested if she didn’t comply. Backed up by her supervisors, Wubbels respectfully stood her ground only to be roughly grabbed, shoved out of the hospital, handcuffed and forced into an unmarked car while hospital police looked on and failed to intervene (take a look at the police body camera footage, which went viral, and see for yourself). Michael Chorosky didn’t have an advocate like Wubbels to stand guard over his Fourth Amendment rights. Chorosky was surrounded by police, strapped to a gurney and then had his blood forcibly drawn after refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. “What country is this? What country is this?” cried Chorosky during the forced blood draw. What country is this indeed? Unfortunately, forced blood draws are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the indignities and abuses being heaped on Americans in the so-called name of “national security.” For example, 21-year-old Charnesia Corley was allegedly being pulled over by Texas police for “rolling” through a stop sign. Claiming they smelled marijuana, police handcuffed Corley, placed her in the back of the police cruiser, and then searched her car for almost an hour. No drugs were found in the car. As the Houston Chronicle reported: Returning to his car where Corley was held, the deputy again said he smelled marijuana and called in a female deputy to conduct a cavity search. When the female deputy arrived, she told Corley to pull her pants down, but Corley protested because she was cuffed and had no underwear on. The deputy ordered Corley to bend over, pulled down her pants and began to search her. Then…Corley stood up and protested, so the deputy threw her to the ground and restrained her while another female was called in to assist. When backup arrived, each deputy held one of Corley’s legs apart to conduct the probe. The cavity search lasted 11 minutes. This practice is referred to as “rape by cop.” Corley was eventually charged with resisting arrest and with possession of 0.2 grams of marijuana. Those charges were subsequently dropped. David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found. During a routine traffic stop, Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. No contraband or anything illegal was found. Thirty-eight-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley, were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window. Insisting that he smelled marijuana, the trooper proceeded to interrogate them and search the car. Despite the fact that both women denied smoking or possessing any marijuana, the police officer then called in a female trooper, who carried out a roadside cavity search, sticking her fingers into the older woman’s anus and vagina, then performing the same procedure on the younger woman, wearing the same pair of gloves. No marijuana was found. Sixty-nine-year-old Gerald Dickson was handcuffed and taken into custody (although not arrested or charged with any crime) after giving a ride to a neighbor’s son, whom police suspected of being a drug dealer. Despite Dickson’s insistence that the bulge under his shirt was the result of a botched hernia surgery, police ordered Dickson to “strip off his clothes, bend over and expose all of his private parts. No drugs or contraband were found.” Meanwhile, four Milwaukee police officers were charged with carrying out rectal searches of suspects on the street and in police district stations over the course of several years. One of the officers was accused of conducting searches of men’s anal and scrotal areas, often inserting his fingers into their rectums and leaving some of his victims with bleeding rectums. It’s gotten so bad that you don’t even have to be suspected of possessing drugs to be subjected to a strip search. A North Carolina public school allegedly strip-searched a 10-year-old boy in search of a $20 bill lost by another student, despite the fact that the boy, J.C., twice told school officials he did not have the missing money. The assistant principal reportedly ordered the fifth grader to disrobe down to his underwear and subjected him to an aggressive strip-search that included rimming the edge of his underwear. The missing money was later found in the school cafeteria. Suspecting that Georgia Tech alum Mary Clayton might have been attempting to smuggle a Chik-Fil-A sandwich into the football stadium, a Georgia Tech police officer allegedly subjected the season ticket-holder to a strip search that included a close examination of her underwear and bra. No contraband chicken was found. What these incidents show is that while forced searches may span a broad spectrum of methods and scenarios, the common denominator remains the same: a complete disregard for the dignity and rights of the citizenry. In fact, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Florence v. Burlison, any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband. Examples of minor infractions which have resulted in strip searches include: individuals arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell, making an improper left turn, engaging in an antiwar demonstration (the individual searched was a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years). Police have also carried out strip searches for passing a bad check, dog leash violations, filing a false police report, failing to produce a driver’s license after making an illegal left turn, having outstanding parking tickets, and public intoxication. A failure to pay child support can also result in a strip search. As technology advances, these searches are becoming more invasive on a cellular level, as well. For instance, close to 600 motorists leaving Penn State University one Friday night were stopped by police and, without their knowledge or consent, subjected to a breathalyzer test using flashlights that can detect the presence of alcohol on a person’s breath. These passive alcohol sensors are being hailed as a new weapon in the fight against DUIs. (Those who refuse to knowingly submit to a breathalyzer test are being subjected to forced blood draws. Thirty states presently allow police to do forced blood draws on drivers as part of a nationwide “No Refusal” initiative funded by the federal government. Not even court rulings declaring such practices to be unconstitutional in the absence of a warrant have slowed down the process. Now police simply keep a magistrate on call to rubber stamp the procedure over the phone.) The National Highway Safety Administration, the same government agency that funds the “No Refusal” DUI checkpoints and forcible blood draws, is also funding nationwide roadblocks aimed at getting drivers to “voluntarily” provide police with DNA derived from saliva and blood samples, reportedly to study inebriation patterns. In at least 28 states, there’s nothing voluntary about having one’s DNA collected by police in instances where you’ve been arrested, whether or not you’re actually convicted of a crime. All of this DNA data is being fed to the federal government. Airline passengers, already subjected to virtual strip searches, are now being scrutinized even more closely, with the Customs and Border Protection agency tasking airport officials with monitoring the bowel movements of passengers suspected of ingesting drugs. They even have a special hi-tech toilet designed to filter through a person’s fecal waste. Iris scans, an essential part of the U.S. military’s boots-on-the-ground approach to keeping track of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, are becoming a de facto method of building the government’s already mammoth biometrics database. Funded by the Dept. of Justice, along with other federal agencies, the iris scan technology is being incorporated into police precincts, jails, immigration checkpoints, airports and even schools. School officials—from elementary to college—have begun using iris scans in place of traditional ID cards. As for parents wanting to pick their kids up from school, they have to first submit to an iris scan. As for those endless pictures everyone so cheerfully uploads to Facebook (which has the largest facial recognition database in the world) or anywhere else on the internet, they’re all being accessed by the police, filtered with facial recognition software, uploaded into the government’s mammoth biometrics database and cross-checked against its criminal files. With good reason, civil libertarians fear these databases could “someday be used for monitoring political rallies, sporting events or even busy downtown areas.” While the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent government officials from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause—evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot—the founders could scarcely have imagined a world in which we needed protection against widespread government breaches of our privacy, including on a cellular level. Yet that’s exactly what we are lacking and what we so desperately need. Unfortunately, the indignities being heaped upon us by the architects and agents of the American police state—whether or not we’ve done anything wrong—are just a foretaste of what is to come. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government doesn’t need to tie you to a gurney and forcibly take your blood or strip you naked by the side of the road in order to render you helpless. It has other methods—less subtle perhaps but equally humiliating, devastating and mind-altering—of stripping you of your independence, robbing you of your dignity, and undermining your rights. With every court ruling that allows the government to operate above the rule of law, every piece of legislation that limits our freedoms, and every act of government wrongdoing that goes unpunished, we’re slowly being conditioned to a society in which we have little real control over our bodies or our lives.
“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
It’s called implied consent... and it’s based upon more than you want your ignorant sheep to realize. Let me enlighten you and those you make shit their pants in fear. 1) unconscious drivers normally are a product of MVA 2) They will have the smell of alcohol emanating from their unconscious breath. 3) Thousands of cars managed to travel down the section of road, without a problem, that the unconscious person couldn’t travel down without slamming into a ditch, fence and tree. Why is that? You have an accident, smell of alcohol... and in many cases, open containers of alcoholic beverage inside the vehicle. That’s more than enough to get a warrantless blood draw from a person that’s actively processing the alcohol out of their blood via respiration (something done while unconscious). It’s called an exigent circumstance... and even the USSC HAS RULED ITS A VALID REASON FOR A WARRANTLESS BLOOD DRAW. I’ve done implied consent blood draws MANY times. Here are two facts related to my past blood draws. 1) Never once did and blood draw I ordered come back from the lab without a BAC present or without THC present... or BOTH. 2) About 90% of the time, an ER nurse had privately advised me, PRIOR TO THE IMPLIED CONSENT BLOOD DRAW, what the BAC reading was, because the first fucking thing any hospital does with an unconscious patient, IS DRAW BLOOD... they determine what’s in the blood, in the hospital lab, IN MINUTES. Yes, it’s a HIPPA violation... big fucking deal. HIPPA was a snowflake bullshit federal law designed to protect fag cock suckers with AIDS. I can assure you, I didn’t ask if the unconscious driver had AIDS.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Ah, the conclusion of another fear mongering bullshit article with such drama that hides Shakespeare in the shadows during these modern times. And so it is that with each and every fear mongering article like this, the anti-government campaign continues. Regardless of the populist rhetoric they have stolen and try to use, the anti-government crowd is clearly working to achieve their agenda to destroy this great country. The anti-government campaign is a war on government in this nation. It is being waged by those that seek to demonize government by any reason to promote and support their agenda. The relentless government bashing comes from crazed individuals as they dramatically escalate their attacks on government. Their anti-government rhetoric is now reaching near hysterical levels as they search for others to join them in their movement. They warn of the of a “totalitarian state.” The individuals participating in this movement seek to whip up public anger and resentment and channel it directly at “big government.” Some maintain that the federal government has become so overwhelmingly repressive that armed resistance was not out of the question. We have reached a point where extreme hatred for government, law and order with its “jack booted” law enforcement officers have become part of the daily lives of some fanatics in this country. God Bess America and God forgive these idiots for they know not what they do.
Anything warrantless would be a violation of the Constitution whether you realize it or not. Your are to be free in your person papers and affects.
Yep - that's the way it's supposed to work anyways.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Baaaaa - nice rant fed.gov worshiping sheep.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Why can't they just get a warrant? I bet it is real easy. I bet there are willing judges.
Thank you....just another case of doing the Lord's work. Although I knew it would be impossible for a Paultard libertarian to address or rebate such a scholarly intelligent and truthful composition. Composing intelligent frameworks are far from a reality for you dumb asses. And since they are covered by copyright, you have my permission take notes and use my writings as a source model.
Government is your god you arrogant, self-aggrandizing ass. You ignore - no not ignore but cheer the numerous atrocities perpetrated on American citizens by your "benevolent" federal government. You turn a blind eye to any and all criminal conduct the government has committed - CIA drug running, MKULTRA, the Tuskegee experiment - just too many to list here. You are a deluded slave Tater. Keep licking those jackboots!
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I read into your unpleasantly rough and limited vocabulary words a subliminal plea for mercy as a stimulus signal for salvation in your quest for deliverance from ruin. Unfortunately, your plea is below my threshold of conscious awareness. Your cruel and harsh words will be ignored and fall on deaf ears as also do the words from the hate group that makes a point of holding protests outside churches and the funerals of slain soldiers. You are of the same making as those people in that group. There are some individuals who continually turn a deaf ear to sound reason and good advice, and willfully go wrong for fear of being controlled when there is no reason to frightened. You are one of those individuals whose fear is contrived and created in a way that is totally artificial and sadly unrealistic. It is unfortunate for humanity that you have become one of those forlorn people who are pitifully useless and therefore lonely abandoned. You are unmerciful in your troubled misery and self-inflicted misfortune and I fear for you there is no redemption.
What country is this indeed? That's exactly the point; We are no longer a country or nation. We currently live in an international, aka "Global" Police State. With Humanist-Darwinian-Pagan Ethics. Anyone who insists otherwise is just engaging in wishful thinking. Live and prepare accordingly.
Does it matter *what* it's called? "Implied" anything is nothing but coercion from fascists. Any "implied" laws that come from the barrel of a gun are BS and not ethical, moral NOR should be acknowledged legal. I understand you were doing your job back in the day, but it doesn't mean you must defend or support every past policy and law as a *former* Peace Officer.
Let's be honest -- the guy is a cartoonish blind shill for the Beast System. Frankly, Major Burns represents all that is wrong with the world.
You are too ploddingly predictable on the use of your words and phrases. Did you ever stop to think the number of times you have used the same jargon and phrases over and over again all these many years you have been posting? Well, it you haven’t then you should. Can you imagine when you were in school your poor old teacher at her desk reading "The book was interesting" a hundred times or more? That could not have been good for creating a friendly grading environment. And neither can the reading of your same adjectives over and over - time after time – again and again. So, I respectfully recommend to you that when posting from now on you should always try to find new words and phrases that convey your insults both vividly and accurately/ IF you are ever hope to in small manner gain support for your destruction of America cause, you need to get rid of these overused words and phrases that have consequently become of little to no importance and are completely lacking in originality. To put it bluntly, Deckard, they have become trite. So, get rid of your “ho hum” way of saying the same thing over and over again and generate some exuberant passion to make your message shine through. Make you energy contagious. There are ways to do this. It is a learnable trait. Do all of this and you’ll gain a raving audience. Of course, they will never belief what you say because everything you say is based on misconceptions and hateful lies. But at least they will have an appreciation for your new embolden style and they will absolutely fawn over your wonderful ebullience. Now, never let it be said that I did try to help you …
Stone: Deckard: Interpreting the Constitution is the ultimate responsibility of the SCOTUS. SCOTUS is charged with ensuring the American people have equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. You need to learn that not every search, seizure, or arrest has to be made pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant. because SCOTUS has ruled that warrantless police conduct do comply with the Fourth Amendment when it is reasonable under the circumstances. These exceptions made to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement show SCOTUS' reluctance to unduly impede the job of LE officials. The court realized that always requiring police officers to take the time to get a warrant application by locating and appearing before a judge could easily result in the destruction of evidence, the disappearance of suspects and witnesses, or even both. So when is a warrant not requited, you ask? Well, the conditions and circumstances under which a warrantless search, seizure, or arrest is deemed reasonable falls within seven categories. Permit me to list those for you so that you will become as enlighten as I am:
The people are responsible for understanding the constitution. Not just automatiacally agreeing with a so called Supreme Court just because the have some official title. Get out a dictionary and define each word. A plain reading with no spin says no search without a search warrant. On the topic we are talking about. Not some bullshit lawyer jargon spinning lies. Free in your papers persons and affects means just what it says. No matter what the Supreme Court says. Sure we may have to obey their corrupt decisions when they are corrupt or suffer the consequences. That doesn't mean any of their decisions are based on truth or what the founders very plainly second grade stuff stated in the fourth amendment.
Get out a dictionary and define each word. A plain reading with no spin says no search without a search warrant. On the topic we are talking about. Not some bullshit lawyer jargon spinning lies. Amen! Well stated. Titles, badges, positions, black robes...If the spirit of the "law" is wrong or not righteous, not even majority decisions by SCOTUS make violations of personal sovereignty right. Neither do the demonic spin of silver-tongued mercenary lawyers.
The further problem appears to be...those in positions of authoritah fronting for certain agendas of political ideologues. These bureaucrats and officials just keep on escalating and abusing their power while violating the 4A as a RULE rather than exception. Also achieved by unchallenged compliance: conditioning us to roll over. When the Hard Left or UN entity "officially" is given the helm of the Feral Gummint, THEN WHAT?? Like all subversives (like the fascist Left, bi-partisan Statists, Social Justice Warrior crusaders and Globalist PTB), giving them an inch of benefit of doubt always results in the second inch, a foot, and...MILE. This is what's happening with the 1A, 2A, 4A, etc fronts.
I’ll get back to you on this after the Supreme Court [decides] whether police need warrant to draw blood from unconscious drunk-driving suspects. In more than half of U.S. states, there are laws on the books that sanction warrantless blood draws from unconscious intoxicated-driving suspects. The SCOTUS decision could have ramifications for how courts interpret the laws.
The supreme court says you can murder kids. Get a search warrant. What's so hard about that?
Get a search warrant. What's so hard about that? What's so hard about what? It is hard for me to understand what you "trying" to say. If fact, it's impossible. Can you please try again?
Let's leave kids out of this. Ir we are to have this discussion - use libertarians.
Murderous opinions don't count. Get a search warrant
What are murderous opinions?
Driving on public access roadways is a PRIVILEGE. In most states, you agree to Consent when you agree to get a license. You might wanna review Mitchell v. Wisconsin. The only time I might not get a implied consent blood draw, is if the unconscious motorist stuck and killed a fucking paultard.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Stone likes to back the Paultards, occasionally, to keep them posting. He’s smarter than he lets on
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I have no problem with anything Stone say or does
I’ve made application for a warrant, many times. How many have you done? It takes longer than you think. It CANT BE DONE FROM THE HOSPITAL, unless it’s a telephonic warrant.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
No driving is most certainly a right whether recognized by the government or not.
A right isn’t revocable. You talk a lot of shit for someone with a license in your wallet. You gonna tell us you’ve been driving your adult life without a license? If driving is a right, a license isn’t needed.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
If rights aren't revocable. Then from now on you have to argue against the government taken anybody's guns for any reason.
You'll have to also argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional. Because we have a right to life. You know that life liberty and pursuit of happiness thing.
Come on Gatlin what did you say? You won't hurt my feelings.
lol... you’re an idiot.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You said rights can't be taken away. If rights can't be taken away as you say then that is the logical conclusion to your view
I did not say rights can be taken away. Don’t pull that Dicktard yella bullshit. I said driving on a public access fucking road is NOT a right. Neither is possessing a kilo of heroin. You never addressed my question. Do you have a driver license?
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You never responded to my post. How many search warrant applications have you drafted and submitted to a court?
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
So when the police go to take someones gun away who is insane. You have to oppose that to be consistent. When a felon gets out of jail. Your position has to be that he gets his guns back when he gets out of jail. If you are consistent.
Zero i'm not an officer of the law. It doesn't matter how hard it is. It is a constitutional requirement for a search of someones person paper or affects. According to the plain reading of the constitution. The constitution isn't in some secret code that only liars and lawyers can understand. It is meant to be understood and it is with a dictionary and no spin. I'm back on my computer instead of phone. Easier to respond.
Under the constitution a license isn't needed to drive. Under the illegitimate color of law it is required. They have the guns and they are corrupt or ignorant and they will follow their unconstitutional laws. So you will still get arrested. Yes I have a license. But I told you in the past in private message that I drove for a decade without one. Because it is a right. Now under duress I got a license years ago.
Comments (41 - 62) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestMore than half of the states (29 states) allow police to do warrantless, forced blood draws on unconscious individuals whom they suspect of driving while intoxicated.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
With every court ruling that allows the government to operate above the rule of law, every piece of legislation that limits our freedoms, and every act of government wrongdoing that goes unpunished, we’re slowly being conditioned to a society in which we have little real control over our bodies or our lives.
#3. To: GrandIsland (#1)
That’s more than enough to get a warrantless blood draw
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Anything warrantless would be a violation of the Constitution whether you realize it or not. Your are to be free in your person papers and affects.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#5. To: Gatlin (#2)
(Edited)
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#6. To: Deckard, Grandisland (#4)
#7. To: Deckard (#5)
(Edited)
...nice rant ...
#8. To: Gatlin (#7)
(Edited)
just another case of doing the Lord's work.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#9. To: Deckard (#8)
#10. To: Deckard (#0)
You think you’ve got rights? Think again...
#11. To: GrandIsland (#1)
It’s called implied consent...
#12. To: Deckard (#8)
#13. To: Deckard (#8)
Government is your god - arrogant, self-aggrandizing ass - atrocities perpetrated on American - your "benevolent" federal government - criminal conduct the government has committed - CIA drug running - You are a deluded slave - keep licking those jackboots – and blah, blah, blah going on and on with such nauseating
#14. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, GrandIsland (#4)
Anything warrantless would be a violation of the Constitution whether you realize it or not.
You may want it to be and like it to be, but it is not. Your are to be free in your person papers and affects.
Again, you may want it to be and like it to be, but it is not. Yep - that's the way it's supposed to work anyways.
Nope - That may be the way it’s “supposed” to work by your personal interpretation. But, libertarian asshole, you do not get to interpret the Constitution to satisfy your own desires, goals and agenda. 1. Felony Arrest in a Public Place
If you have questions on this, please feel free consult with your resident legal guru. At which time he will no doubt give you a 50 - or more - paragraph dissertation complete with case histories and links to show you that I am correct.
2. Searches Directly Related to a Lawful Arrest
3. Traffic Stops for Reasonable Suspicion
4. Suspects of Ongoing Criminal Activity
5. Exigent Circumstances
6. Certain Roadside Checkpoints
7. Reasonable Searches and Good Faith
#15. To: Gatlin (#14)
#16. To: A K A Stone (#15)
The people are responsible for understanding the constitution. Not just automatiacally agreeing with a so called Supreme Court just because the have some official title.
#17. To: A K A Stone, Deckard, GrandIsland, sneakypete (#15)
(Edited)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#15)
#19. To: Gatlin (#18)
#20. To: A K A Stone (#19)
(Edited)
The supreme court says you can murder kids.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#19)
(Edited)
The supreme court says you can murder kids.
#22. To: Gatlin (#20)
#23. To: A K A Stone (#22)
Murderous opinions don't count. Get a search warrant
#24. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#25. To: Gatlin (#23)
#26. To: GrandIsland (#25)
for as I have said, it's his forum
You know that.
And I have told him that.
I am just missing what he is saying here.
So, I will let it go.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#6)
(Edited)
Why can't they just get a warrant? I bet it is real easy.
#28. To: GrandIsland (#24)
#29. To: A K A Stone, GrandIsland (#28)
(Edited)
#30. To: A K A Stone (#28)
No driving is most certainly a right whether recognized by the government or not.
#31. To: GrandIsland (#30)
#32. To: All (#31)
(Edited)
#33. To: Gatlin (#29)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#32)
You'll have to also argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional. Because we have a right to life. You know that life liberty and pursuit of happiness thing.
#35. To: GrandIsland (#34)
(Edited)
#36. To: A K A Stone (#35)
#37. To: A K A Stone (#35)
Why can't they just get a warrant? I bet it is real easy.
#38. To: GrandIsland (#36)
I did not say rights can be taken away. Don’t pull that Dicktard yella bullshit.
#39. To: GrandIsland (#37)
You never responded to my post. How many search warrant applications have you drafted and submitted to a court?
#40. To: GrandIsland (#30)
You talk a lot of shit for someone with a license in your wallet. You gonna tell us you’ve been driving your adult life without a license? If driving is a right, a license isn’t needed.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]